I see my friend Charles McVety is at it again. A couple of days ago he took credit for persuading the Harper Conservatives to alter a bill so that film producers will be denied public funds if their work contains gay sex or, gosh, the usual kind. This is a form of state censorship, of course. It amounts to a government which was elected by 36% of the 65% of people who voted, telling 100% of us what our morality should be.
But, it’s pure Charles. I would expect no less of this sanctimonious blowhard, career religious moocher, televangelist, Stephen Harper cheerleader, homophobic crusader and media whore. He counts politicians who share his evangelical beliefs, such as Mr. Harper and Stockwell Day, as confidantes and once boasted in my presence that he could get the prime minister on the phone in minutes, while I could not even get a distant meeting. And he was right.
If you care to look, you will find many references to McVety on this site. In fact, we clashed soon after I was elected as a star-crossed Conservative once again in January of 2006 and the issue of same-sex marriage was coming to a head in the Commons. I dissed him as an anti-gay weirdo, and wrote a memorable blog in which I compared his Defend Marriage Canada outfit to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. My meaning was simple – faith-based administrations, of the kind he wishes for Canada, never work, and will always fail, especially in a secular society such as ours.
Naturally, being a promoter without equal, Charles was able to turn it into something like this: MP Garth Turner calls Christians Talibans. I am sure with that rallying cry that he raised a few more million through his web site (www.word.ca – notice Stockwell Day on the header), his school (Canada Christian College), his TV show (Sunday, 10 pm, Miracle Channel; 11 pm on CTS), his radio show (Tuesday 9 am, AM640 Toronto), his magazine (Evangelical Christian) and his think tank, Institute for Canadian Values.
He also tried to get me fired, of course, writing to Stephen Harper directly when he was still my political boss. In fact, the PMO’s director of political operations, and Harper’s campaign manager, Doug Finley, helped Charles McVety mount a campaign to strip me of my Conservative nomination in August of 2006. After a brief but intense battle (well documented here), he lost.
Well, not quite.
Just six weeks later I was summarily tossed out of the Conservative caucus, with Doug Finley standing at the back of the room. Damn, what a coincidence.
In any case, I would like you to be aware of the pervasive and substantial influence that Dr. Charles McVety has over the machinery of the Conservative government of our nation. He told reporters his direct conversations with Stock Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (another believer), as well as many conversations with the prime minister’s office, led to the policy change noted above.
Mr. McVety, besides being against the portrayal of sex in art, is vehemently against homosexuals and believes they are deviant. He has grossly misrepresented sex education materials as pornography. He is dead set against abortion. He even orchestrated the nomination of a Conservative candidate in the last election, Rondo Thomas. He tried to overturn my own nomination. He says Stephen Harper is on his speed dial.
Now he will control what you watch.
Be very afraid.
185 comments ↓
Between McVety’s horn-tooting, Flanagan’s comments to CTV today about ‘incrementalism’, and Ken Epp’s backdoor assault on women’s rights there is one thing I am not afraid to say.
The ‘Harper Secret Agenda’ isn’t a secret anymore.
So Garth … are we on the topic of anal sex and it’s suitability for public consumption courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer??
Just think of it Garth … anal sex .. where a man inserts his penis into another person’s (female or male) anus and then ejaculates his semen and deposits his familial DNA sperm into an excrement-laced rectum and lower bowel.
That sir, is the objective medical definition of anal sex in all it’s titillating glory. Not a pretty thing, and it should be kept hidden between the bedsheets, rather than being openly subsidized by the state on Canadian television of screen … agreed ..??!!!
Please forgive the blatant accolades, but I must say, this is the most brilliant and candid commentary I have ever seen from a (sound-minded) politician ever!
Belly-busting laughter included.
I believe a MEDAL and ORDER OF CANADA is deserving.
Garth:I have never read such bigoted ,slanderous comments….you should be ashamed…don’t lower yourself to gutter dialogue.I would only expect that from the fundamentalist crowd.You can do better!!!!
Dare I start, Be careful what you wish for Canadians for you just might get more than your bargained for. This article from Garth is just the beginning. There is more to come, because these people have put themselves above the reproach of the common people. They are fully ware they need only 40% of 65% of the voting public to rule, not govern the masses…soon it will be up to the 35% of Canadians who think there vote does not count. Look south to see what the young generation can do when they want change. The time may soon be approaching when the future for Canada is on the line, and should these 35% think it is not important they will regret they never stood their ground.
For what it is worth Quebec is being played like a bunch of fools, because these same people will slam them into the ground once they get what they want. They know they can buy them, and it is cheap at half the price to get their way… and here in the East we were told by Stephen Harper we were defeatists…has he ever said he lied?
Think? then get ready to vote.
Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
I remember when this Jerry Falwell wannabe came to Halton trying to unseat Garth,I think that was when I first started reading Garth’s blog.What a Slime bag thankfully MOST Canadians aren’t That Nutz on religion.Too bad Most Catholics weren’t raised by my Parents with a heavy dose of skepticism.They only tortured us with Religion once a wk for Mass.Well maybe all religious parents shouldn’t take thier religion so seriously,the world would be a better place.Garth your discription of Slime bag was Too kind.:>)
Blowhard? Moocher? Political cheerleader? Media whore?
Sounds a little familiar, Garth.
I said “religious moocher” and “Stephen Harper cheerleader.” The others are open for debate. Don’t exaggerate. — Garth
This hasn’t passed yet, has it? My understanding is it still needs to get through third reading.
Now that it’s well known that this provision is buried in there, will the opposition not hold the bill up until it’s removed? I imagine that all the opposition parties are opposed to government censorship, no?
But, it’s pure Charles. I would expect no less of this sanctimonious blowhard, career religious moocher, televangelist, Stephen Harper cheerleader, homophobic crusader and media whore. . . .
You’re so kind, Garth — please, I can’t handle so many compliments, especially all at once! I’ll try to improve, but now I’m too exhausted!
************************************
. . . I would like you to be aware of the pervasive and substantial influence that Dr. Charles McVety has over the machinery of the Conservative government of our nation.
This alone is the only reason why CRAP MUST be defeated in the election — look at how dubya and his neo-cons are systematically destroying the US.
Has New Orleans been rebuilt to the same standard, or better than it was before Katrina and Rita? No. Why? Because most, if not all of the National Guard is in the Middle and Far East. What about American citizens (taxpayers)? Don’t they count for anything?
************************************
He is dead set against abortion. . . . Now he will control what you watch. Be very afraid.
McVety likes to be in control of women’s lives, to tell them what they can, and cannot do? A control freak, if ever I saw one.
Certainly,I will never be afraid of him or any of his ilk — these are the people that give Christianity a bad name.
I relish the pleasure of seeing CRAP gone, and gone for good. They are doing much to destroy the very fabric of Canada.
By Harry S on 03.02.08 9:02 pm
No, Harry. YOU are on the topic of anal sex. I’m sure that it reflects something on or about you although hwat isn’t entirely clear.
pssst – Harry, Bill C-19’s provisions aren’t about ‘funding’. They’re about post production tax credits.
Ooops, hit ’send’ too quickly. It’s Bill C-10, no C-19.
Religious zealots like Dr Chuck have caused me great personal suffering as a residential school refugee. In the aboriginal culture we believe that there are those among us who have “two spirits”and deserve respect because of their special nature.
Intimacy with your special someone should not be graphically described and disrespected or legislated just because it doesn’t meet a government standard.
Believe me I have seen way too much of that already in the aboriginal community in Canada.
Education, awareness and health issues all have their place in government sponsored programs that prevent disease or unwanted pregnancy but we can’t legislate attitude!
New Discounted Price For My “Prayer Cloth” And “Holy Oil”
Only $0.99 per square kilometer or $1.99 per kilolitre.
Cures all diseases and brings everyone fame and fortune.
Also up for bids is a slightly charred Grilled Cheese Sandwich with the image of ?????
Bidding starts at an even $25,000.
Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
I agree. Harry S crosses the lines so many times. He should be tossed. But then again, if we are against censorship, which I am, then he has the right of freedom of speech. And the portrayal of sex in art is preferable to the portrayal of many forms of violence, in my opinion. I hate to see someone raped. Rape is an act of violence. But I have no problem seeing people having consensual sex in movies. If it offends you, turn the channel.
I have a big problem with others deciding for me what I can watch and what I can’t watch. I agree…be very afraid if you allow others to determine what you can and cannot read, (Fahrenheit 451 was on last night) and what you can and cannot watch.
Harry, Garth allows you to spew your venom on here, and your last post is more offensive than anything I’ve ever watched in a movie. I hope you got your jollies writing it.
Trudeau was right…the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. That may not be an exact quote, but it is the gist of the idea.
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
……………………………
Up your’s, Jody ….
(Garth Turner Unedited – Join Canadians in conversation with Garth)
Is there any actual proof that McVety had the power on this that he claims he had or do we simply take it as true because he says so? Politicians, whether secular or disguised as religious “leaders’, routinely overstate their influence.
REPOST BECAUSE IT IS RELATED TO GARTH’S INTRODUCTION
I am pasting the whole article here because I am hoping more people will read it. Those of us Christians/Non-Christians who care about the less fortunate will read it and weap.
I want my Canada back. I want to keep the USA out of Canada’s business. I want the right wing fundamentalists to keep their paranoia and rigidity in their church and not attempt to foist it on our society. Watch the DVD “Zeitgeist” and learn some truth.
Does one really want these right wing people in power over us?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/02/pf-4888331.html
March 2, 2008
Harper gradually ‘tightening the screws’ on government, ex-advisor says
By Alexander Panetta, THE CANADIAN PRESS
Prime Minister Stephen Harper. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Tom Hanson
OTTAWA – Perhaps the most significant act of the Harper government is being conducted so slowly, steadily, and silently that it has raised barely a whisper of public debate.
After three Conservative budgets, the Government of Canada has been made financially incapable of offering costly new social programs or significant tax cuts for the foreseeable future.
Remember the national day-care plan the Liberals talked about when the country was awash in $13-billion annual surpluses? Or the Kelowna treaty to deal with aboriginal poverty?
Those surpluses are now almost gone.
A mentor and advisor to Stephen Harper applauds the prime minister for working toward a long-standing conservative dream – a less-present federal government – and for doing it without any backlash.
Tom Flanagan says Conservatives are gradually “tightening the screws on the federal government,” leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets and making it harder for Ottawa to spend.
To launch any big-ticket initiatives over the next few years a prime minister – whether Harper or a successor – would either need to risk political suicide or hope for an economic miracle.
That’s because raising taxes, returning to a deficit or slashing existing programs could be the only ways to pay for new spending, barring an unexpected economic boom.
“They’ve gradually re-engineered the system. I’m quite impressed with it,” said Flanagan, who ran the 2004 Conservative campaign and has been a longtime confidant and former chief of staff to Harper.
“They’re boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas . . . The federal government is now more constrained, the provinces have more revenue, and conservatives should be happy.”
With only a minority government, says Flanagan, Harper could never have taken the instant slice-and-dice approach of the Mike Harris Tories during Ontario’s Common Sense Revolution.
Instead the prime minister has taken one cautious step at a time.
The Tories actually boosted spending dramatically in their first two budgets, often on conservative-friendly measures like tax credits for families, an equalization hike that went largely into provincial tax cuts by the Quebec government, and new military equipment.
There were no major budget cuts, with rare exceptions like the now-scrapped Court Challenges Program and Status of Women Canada which had long been targets for Conservatives.
While overall spending went up, measures were taken to deplete revenues. There were the GST cuts worth more than $11 billion annually, income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, bigger provincial transfers and income-splitting for seniors.
Some other measures will accelerate over time, Flanagan says, like Employment Insurance reforms and tax-sheltered savings accounts from this year’s budget.
Now the economy appears to be slowing down and spending increases are being curtailed considerably to avoid a deficit. The budget surplus has shrivelled from $13 billion last year to projected surpluses of $2.3 billion, $1.3 billion, $3.1 billion, and $4.7 billion over the next four years.
That means Ottawa can no longer wade into provincial jurisdictions like education and health care – forcing it toward a more minimalist agenda if it wants to keep the books balanced.
Flanagan says that in the prime minister’s step-by-step approach, spending control was the last piece to fall into place.
“Harper really didn’t have the option of the cataclysmic approach because you can’t do that without a majority,” he said in an interview.
“So he’s made the incremental approach work – all the time having the insecurity of a minority government.
“It’s really quite a performance, I think . . . Over a period of a few years they’ve got all this in place and they never appeared – at any one point – they never appeared to be making a radical shift.
“But the cumulative impact of all these together is creating a new profile.”
Not only are the Conservatives boxing in the federal spending power in general, said Flanagan, “they’re also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.”
The Tories are fond of pointing to John Diefenbaker and noting that federal revenues as a share of GDP will fall by 2010 to their lowest level since The Chief was in office.
In fact, federal revenues will drop to their lowest level since Lester Pearson’s early days in office. They were at 14.9 per cent of GDP in 1963-64, grew to a high of 19.5 per cent in 1974-75, and are now projected to drop to 15.3 per cent in 2009-10.
But the world is not the same place it was in 1963 – nor are the financial pressures on the Canadian government.
That 1963 figure was posted before Pearson’s Liberal government introduced medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada Student Loans, and before the skyrocketing rates of post-secondary education.
Take Canadian universities as an example.
They’ve had 20-per-cent enrolment growth in the last decade alone and face increasingly intense international competition to build world-class research facilities. Canada’s economic future hinges in part on their success.
Recent federal budgets had featured overall spending increases of six per cent a year. This year’s budget still projects an increase – albeit at a much slower rate of three per cent – to $208 billion. But spending may need to be trimmed next year if current surplus projections are correct.
One economist has expressed concern that Ottawa is teetering on the edge of a deficit for the first time in a decade.
RBC’s Derek Holt warned that the federal government will have its “hands tied” for at least three years, and that measures in the latest budget will cut even deeper into the federal kitty for years afterward.
“The amount of foregone revenues is just going to skyrocket,” said Holt.
“Even within the first five years (of the new tax-free savings account) it’s almost a $1 billion cumulative price tag. Longer-term, that number only multiplies by itself as the portfolios compound.
“Over time, they’re going to whittle away at the taxes on investment income pretty aggressively over the next 10, 20 years.”
All the same, not all small-c conservatives are happy with the prime minister.
Gerry Nicholls worked closely with Harper at the National Citizens’ Coalition and compares him to a chess master who always thinks a few steps ahead of everyone else.
But Nicholls wishes this chess master would cut spending a little faster – and then reduce taxes. He’s not impressed by arguments that the federal government is already being run into a fiscal wall.
“Basically what the strategy is, it seems to me, is spend so much money that there’s nothing left for the Liberals to spend,” Nicholls said.
“That’s not fiscal conservatism. That’s the opposite of fiscal conservatism.
“That’s like saying the way to beat alcoholism is to keep drinking alcohol until you pass out – so then you can’t drink any more.”
He says the Harper approach may be great politics because it handcuffs the Liberals. But it’s lousy economics, says Nicholls, and an especially disappointing performance from a “fiscal hawk” like Harper.
As for the politics, the opposition may need to perform some creative budgeting to deliver any significant spending promises in an election campaign.
“We certainly haven’t abandoned our vision on aboriginals or child care or anything else,” said Liberal finance critic John McCallum.
“But this does make it somewhat more difficult for us to do these things – at least quickly.
“They’ve left us only a minor crisis away from going into deficit. But if history is any guide – and it may or may not be – over time, surpluses will turn out to be larger than they currently are.”
Flanagan insists the last three Conservative budgets have left the Liberals cornered. And he isn’t bothered by those on the political right, like Nicholls, who criticize the prime minister for not being drastic enough.
“Part of the execution of the plan was that there would be conservatives attacking him – like John Williamson (of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation), Gerry Nicholls,” Flanagan said.
“That’s extremely useful, to have that kind of pressure there, berating the prime minister for not doing enough.”
By Bonnie L on 03.02.08 8:46 pm
There was a picture of Steve Harper with his back to the camera in one of the Toronto papers early this morning. I cannot locate it again and should have copied it when I saw it. However the idea of using it for a poster didn’t come to later in the day. If anyone can, will they post the URL.
If the Liberals decide to do negative posters for an election, it would be a great one. Looks like he is leaving in the picture.
By Bonnie L on 03.02.08 8:49 pm
On the subject of Mr. NcVety, his various ‘organizations’, his clearly partisan political activity and how it relates to his organizations’ tax-exempt status, I would say this is a must read.
Now, about that partisan political activity, what would the revenooers have to say ’bout that?
So Garth just for the record, you support government funding for films like ‘Young People Fucking’?
“I would expect no less of this sanctimonious blowhard, career religious moocher, televangelist, Stephen Harper cheerleader, homophobic crusader and media whore.”
Sounds like a fun guy to get to know If you hadn’t mentioned the Stephen Harper part, I would have sworn you were talking about the Prime Briberer himself
Harry: Why the hang up over anal sex? Do you abhor oral sex, too? What is it about sex acts that make you uncomfortable? Or is it our own sexuality that you are uncomfortable with? Do you feel the same about violence in art? Does violence make you shudder in revulsion?
You walk a thin line when you try to dictate what sexual or violent acts should be artistically expressed.
You do know that we have a criminal code that defines what is acceptable for the viewing public? And we even have a rating system.
I guess the Passion of the Christ would have been “banned” by the Cons for its gratuitous violence?
Try to catch McVety on Sunday nights. He has a half hour show. Twenty minutes is spent begging for donations. Ten minutes is spent ranting against lesbian and gay teachers in the public school system or the systemic anti-Christian policies. He is a nutbar. He is the fundamentalist that we should all be very afraid of–only he is of the Christian variety and a westerner.
By Harry S on 03.02.08 9:02 pm
Sadly, Harry, you remind me of McVety… a self righteous censorship sad example of one who belittles others to build themselves up with a twist. Its also about being the center of attention. Why else would you put up such a dullard descriptive post?
I suppose you’ll be just as sanctimonious attending McVety’s next witch/book burning while ignoring some of your own white stuff that ended up in a sock, on the sheets or down the drain after you “rinsed off” if not physically, most certainly mentally on this site.
Its funny, the paradigms people adopt, the realities they cling onto, the excuses they use to justify their behavior, whether it be a broken taboo or moral, or something less obvious, as obvious as santioned judgement itself.
Harry, its this simple. If you don’t feel the lest bit sorry for such a post, especially after you’ve read this one, its likely that you have a complete disconnect to anything worth giving a shit about beyond yourself. The self centered, Me, I, mine self gratified paradigm you so often ooze is the same disconnect that reveals why you don’t care. I really don’t see you as much more than a victim of your own judgement. Its prophetic, you see, your future, unless you learn to find a heart that has a beat.
As far as McVety goes, he’s a hypocrite, pure and simple. The true fall of any human being is rooted in pride, prestige and greed. the 7 deadly sins listed by Dante, Milton, Claude De Sade and others, was used as a teaching tool and while I didn’t much agree with most of their pontifications, the very nature of serving one’s self at the expense of others is the common denominator to all sin.
I’ve oft told this to many people in my life so for me, it is a matter of script. “Selfishness? Welcome to the road to self destruction. Selflessness? Same thing. Welcome to the road to self destruction. The only way we can keep from destroying ourselves is to consider everyone else, especially ourselves in the choices we make!
And who does it? Who considers everyone else including themselves and all other life in every choice they make? Who considers God? The first of the 10 commandments that clearly states thou shall have no other Gods before me? And what is God? For God has many faces and is known by many names. And if God saves you, do you not become a part of his body? What is God… the whole? Or the sum of its parts, the parts that are ONE in mind, body and soul!
Tell me… how can one enter the gates of heaven with war and selfishness in their heart… how can one know love without forgiveness, unless they have the convenient belief in no such thing but death. And so it goes, we create what we believe.
And who is worth saving? the hypocrite? The tryant? The control freak? The idiot that spouts of his mouth offensively and selfishly?
And who are you, Harry, or the McVety’s of the world to control the will of others? For it is written…
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down, when the man comes around.
Hear the trumpets, hear the pipers. One hundred million angels singing, Multitudes are marching to the big kettle drum. Voices calling, voices crying. Some are born, some are dying. Its alpha and omega’s kingdom come. And the whirlwind is in the thorn trees (and the virgins are all trimming their wings). The whirlwind is in the thorn trees. Its hard for thee to kick against the pricks. In measured hundred weight and penny pound… when the man comes around.
(Johnny Cash, I always liked that man in black)
McVety is one of those pro-life morons who would abolish state-funded abortion and make it criminal too.
Just imagine an abortion-free Canada and all those new single mom’s with their bastard children all being supported on public welfare because nobody can find the dad !!
Abortion is now an indispensable social institution in Canada, and cannot be eliminated by some nutbar government. There are approx. 100,000 abortions performed annually in Canada, with the most being done on the 18-28 y.o. group. Virtually all abortions are performed on unplanned pregnancies, which suggests that many conceptions occurred during recreational sex.
I suspect that most of these pregnancies were conceived under less than ideal conditions, and the woman did not know she was pregnant for a month or two. During this time she may have continued with a lifestyle of partying, boozing, shooting up while the fetus is developing in a very destructive environment.
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome would probably be the epidemic result of taking the pregnancy to term, and this creates a baby that is doomed due to brain damage. It is estimated that most of those in Canadian prisons suffer from FAS. Drugs will also harm the fetus in it’s first few months of development. Of course those women in the sex trade industry cannot take the time off for pregnancy, nor can they hope to raise the bastard child as a brave single mom.
The 100,000 annual abortions spares the Canadian taxpayer of a horrendous future medical and social problem for relatively little cost. If any of these disadvantaged children were forced upon the Canadian taxpayer and society, we would have devastation. Also these pregnant girls are not exactly virgin marys, and their offsprings may not get the best of nurturning with them as mothers. A bad situation only made worse by the likes of McVety.
McVety and all the anti-abortionists seem to be living in some kind of religious haze or they are only attempting to exploit an emotional issue to rally followers. It’s quite insidious.
“media whore”?!
There’s irony there, folks!
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
By Frank Frink on 03.02.08 9:47 pm
A day ago I would have agreed that banishment was warranted or urged ambivalent disengagement but my thinking is evolving.
I have finally made the time to begin watching Beyond Belief 2007: http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/ Although you really should start at the beginning of the conference, and even view Beyond Belief 2006, the talk by Jonathan Haidt illustrates an interesting point.
We need the expression of the full range of opinions to have any assurance that our debating points are valid.
That being said I would hope that we would be able to attract people who are able to make their points with much more sophistication.
Yes, I do believe that Harry S is arguing FOR censorship. Now let’s find a way to explain why we think that censorship can be a dangerous slippery slope.
The answer is in ‘I am the Walrus.’ Play it slowly, if you can.
By Harry S on 03.02.08 9:02 pm
Your imagination is wild. Are you in the employ of this McVety? He’s a real number isn’t he. I wonder what his god think of him.
You see, the God that McVety professes to follow is the judge, not this scheming, judgmental televangelist. Anybody here ever watch him on tv? How often does he ask for money? I hear his co-horts in the USA are being investigated for tax fraud. You know, taking donations and buying fancy homes, cars and vacations. They may lose their church tax-free status.
I hear the founder of Miracle Channel was caught having sex with his staff.
Quite a group that is trying to set moral and ethical standards for Canada.
Harry I bet your jealous of dogs too, because they can self-fellate and you can’t. Poor Harry and poor Charlie, just not getting this 21st Century thing are you?
It’s going back to the Committee.
BTW, (www.word.ca – notice Stockwell Day on the header) ( won’t go look Garth) but is that allowed by a sitting politician, endorsing Dorks like that?
Ah of Mice and Men.
Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
Myself and many here share your sentiments Jody. But in our quest to rid ourselves of This Harper Government he is a valuable asset to us.
There is an oil crunch presently, combined with a growing food shortage. Some may have seen this report already.
http://tinyurl.com/2c6dx6
I’ll never understand why the McVetys out there persistently have their minds wrapped around what other people do in the privacy with their own bodies. What a bunch of perverts.
Garth,
Would it be okay, if we did a quick check of God’s word in this regard.
John 8:2-11
———–
2 Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Harry S
Just think of it Garth … anal sex .. where a man inserts his penis into another person’s (female or male) anus and then ejaculates his semen and deposits his familial DNA sperm into an excrement-laced rectum and lower bowel.
I am so glad you were kind enough to give us your graphic description.
What would we do without you.
And even more… what would Harper do without you? Hoe shocked was he when you gave him the description you just honoured us with ?? Maybe you should ask for a raise in pay .
Are you perhaps using an alias when you are actually the holier than thou Preacher Mc ?
Two interesting reports on water shortages.
First is Palestine/Israel, second deals with new and large dams in the West.
BTW, does anyone know where Canadian water falls under NAFTA?
If Canada leaves NAFTA for good and the US needs the stuff, they will take it, anyway. Just curious.
http://tinyurl.com/35hejd
http://tinyurl.com/2c9n2n
It is because of controlling sicko’s through the past 10 centuries that churches have problems keeping their flocks together.
Garth, first of all, nobody can control what anybody watches. The only issue is whether personal preferences should be subsidized by all of the taxpayers.
Just because something is not subsidized at taxpayer’s expense in no way takes our freedoms away.
Generally we expect a responsible business to support itself without the socialist mentality of the taxpayer’s subsidizing everything that is on demand in the public marketplace.
The second question is, would you personally draw the line anywhere on what type of movies our taxpayer’s dollars should subsidize?
For example, if somebody wanted to make a movie of the type of kinky sex that a Quebec man had last Saturday night in which the life of a woman was snuffed out, should the taxpayers sponsor the public portrayal of this type of sexuality as well?
No? Good, I thought so. But the question remains, where do you draw the line on the pansexual continuum, or do you draw a line anywhere for the purpose of communicating your own views?
Thirdly, what are you going to do about the John McKays and the Paul Steckles and the Tom Wappels in your own party who would share the belief that sexuality is a private matter, the portrayal of which should not be subsidized at taxpayer’s expense?
Is the Liberal Party going to clean house on these type of MPs as well, or will it be these MPs who will prevail in the Liberal Party of Canada?
Anyone see the last story on 60 Minutes tonight, about how the portable health unit, designed to help people in remote areas of the world, now does most of its’ work in the US?
We are very fortunate to be living here.
http://tinyurl.com/2stdp6
Garth, for the record, the denial of tax dollars for a particular project, and state censorship are two very different things!
Is the federal government, for example, censoring or prohibiting the construction of a new football stadium in Winnipeg simply because, to this point, they have not agreed to publicly fund the project with tax payers dollars?
To call any project that the government will not finance from public funds censorship is ludicrous.
Canada is a free nation, but freedom is not contingent on the socialist mentality that the government must finance personal entertainment as well as every other human preference.
For those of you who might actually agree with Mr. McVety’s rabid fundamentalist, dominionist, racist, sexist, homophobic interpretation of what Canadians should or should not be watching, consider this:
This bill allows the Ministries of Heritage and Justice to arbitrarily decide whether or not a production is eligible for a tax credit AFTER the production is well under way and the money is already spent.
Having no idea in advance which productions might suddenly be deemed ‘against the public interest’, these investors will, of course, be considerably less inclined to risk their money on ANY Canadian productions, regardless of how innocuous they may appear on the page.
This will utterly decimate the Canadian film and television industry and leave us with nothing but those filthy, morally bankrupt American movies and TV shows you all love so much.
In other words, by supporting this, you are not only killing ‘Young People F**king’ and ‘Trailer Park Boys’ – you are also killing ‘Shake Hand With the Devil’ and every potential future clone of ‘Road to Avonlea’.
Nice work. Well done. Now we can all sit down and watch ‘The Sopranos’ and ‘Dancing With the Stars’ and the latest direct-to-DVD ‘American Pie’ sequel with our families.
I’m old enough to remember ‘The Tin Drum’ and the subsequent demise of the Ontario Censor Board. Thank you for reminding me that the opposite of ‘Progressive’ is ‘REGRESSIVE’.
All this happens shortly after the Pope requests that all film producers stop making movies with graphic sex scenes. As Leno pointed out a few evenings later, this is a bit hypocritical, in that the Pope can’t even stop his own priests from engaging in graphic sex scenes…
Garth,
My view of this is that this isn’t censorship, because what we’re talking about here is government funding for films.
Personally I don’t think the government should take a major or even a primary responsibility for subsidizing film, t.v. and other “Canadian” cultural industries. My view is that if the filmakers who get most of their money from the taxpayer were producing something really valuable or representative of this country, they wouldn’t have any trouble getting enough money from sales and private donations.
I think the fact that you would describe something like this as censorship is part of the mentality that the government should somehow run our culture, and is frankly part of the problem.
Personally I don’t have any problems with seeing large amounts of gay or straight sex on film. But if the govt has a choice between giving 4 million to a film about people of different social and ethnic backgrounds united by the fact that they like to do it doggy style and using 4 million to cut my taxes, buy an MRI machine, or fix some bridge or overpass that was built 30 years ago and is ready to fall apart any day, then I think the answer should be obvious. So while the sexual restrictions are frankly stupid, I for one welcome them, since they will result in less of my money going to fund any of this stuff.
P.S. I’d welcome an answer on this, since you haven’t to my knowledge ever talked about cultural policy on this blog at any great length.
Best,
Ted
Ah yes, good old Charles McVety, the intolerant bigot. This man is a perfect example of why politics and religion should never be mixed in the same conversation.
I myself have tangled with this narrowminded christian wanna-be. The bible I studied as a child told me that “good” christians are tolerant and respectful of the differences between myself and others. I’ve yet to figure out what bible he reads.
If Charlie wanted to take on a fight for a good and just cause he’d spend his time cleaning up his own backyard by persuing the abuses perpetrated on innocent youth by clergy members who are then defended by the church they represent rather than interfering in the lives of consenting adults. Perhaps he could head down to Millhaven and work his magic there. I’m sure he’d be well received.
What party is working with the Conservatives to have this bill passed? You might have forgotten to add their vote percentages into the 36% quote? Does this bill have to pass through the house, or has it already? If it hasn’t passed can this bill be a confidence vote? That might be the poison poll we are waiting for to bring down the government, at least I would hope so.
Garth, a true example of censorship was exemplified by NDP MP Irene Mathyssen on December 5, 2007, when she publicly censored MP James Moore for the pictures that he was looking at on his laptop.
Those pictures on James Moore’s computer cost the taxpayers nothing, nor did James demand tax-payers dollars subsidize those pictures.
Yet the NDP MP was practicing outright censorship in a very public way.
That is the difference between censorship and publicly funded erotica.
I see that the censorship that was exercised by the NDP Member for London—Fanshawe in the House of Commons on December 5, 2007, was also backed up and supported by the Liberal Member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, Karen Redman.
Again, this activity was in no way an expense to the Canadian taxpayer, and yet both these honourable members were sanctioning censorship right in the House of Commons!
I just read in the G&M that the Democrats are accusing the Harperites of interfering in the US primaries because they’d like to see a Republican nominee. These guys are just too much. PLEASE bring them down pronto.
By Harry S on 03.02.08 8:53 pm
Please help me on this IT affair … exactly why did Flaherty/Harper decide to stop ITs .. who recommended it and why did they accept their advice..??
It must have been a difficult decision that so badly gored IT investors, and brought the wrath of Khan on the Conservatives .. so why ..??!!
Thanks in advance ….
Okay Harry, you asked for it.
Harper/Flaherty decided to scuttle Income Trusts for the benefit of their uberwealthy friends such as Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of Encana, Paul Desmarais Jr. of Power Corporation, and Michael Sabia of BCE. The fact of the matter is these gentlemen all faced significant, adverse tax consequences if corporations they were heavily invested in converted to trusts. Their annual income would go up as the enterprises as trusts would be compelled to distribute amounts at least equal to their otherwise taxable income. These gentlemen didn’t require this extra cash flow, so they were better off if the businesses remained as corporations and retained the bulk of the earnings to grow and be reflected in higher share prices. Then they could extract their profits when desired and at the preferential rates that apply to capital gains. This is not just my opinion, it is demonstrable, mathematical fact.
Since Encana was on the verge of converting to a trust when the Tax Fairness Plan was announced, let’s consider the position of Gwyn Morgan. He owns 1 million (at least) shares of ECA, so in 2006 he received $437,000 as dividends, and since these dividends qualified for the dividend tax credit he would have paid $120,000 income tax on those dividends as a top bracket Alberta resident. Had ECA been a trust for 2006 he would have instead received $3.7 million in trust distributions and paid $1.4 million in taxes. In brief, the conversion of ECA from corporation to trust would cost him $1.3 million in 2006 and comparable amounts in every year after that.
Mark Carney and the Department of Finance were also recommending the change because they alleged the Income Trusts caused tax leakage. The analysis they used to support that allegation is bogus because it assumes there are no taxes collected from registered plans, and even Jack Mintz who generally supports the Conservatives has admitted this is wrong. So, either they are dishonest or incompetent, or possibly both. If the problem is dishonesty I have no idea what the real agenda is.
You’re welcome.
Regards,
EhBC
Hey Garth,
To repeat the calls of many others on the page, perhaps Harry S’s post should be redirected to some other obscure link on your page so that he is still able to participate, but the 99% of us that find him a complete waste of energy can easliy ignore him.
That being said, it’s scary to see the mix of religion and government, and how PMSH seems to allow such fanatics to have any influence in public policy. The people that share Mr. McVeaty’s views have a right to their opinions and beliefs. However religion fanatics in general seem to cry free speach only when it applies to them.
What’s next? Perhaps PMSH will try to influence how sex ed. is taught in schools, or replace the text books with ones that have a bias against abortion and homosexual rights and attempt to influce the eductation system from the ‘back end’ (pardon the pun).
Orwell’s concept of Big Brother is scary enough, but made much worse when you put a religious spin into it!
Here’s looking forward to the eventual election! Still waiting for a town hall in NB!
Cheers!
Garth, so you agree that OUR TAX DOLLARS should subsidize any film made by Canadians? For this is what this discussion should be about.
Yes McVety is over the top in his declarations and so are alot of people on both extremes.
You keep slandering Christians, which I find very offending. Why not slander other religious groups, which probably have more extreme views – such as Orthodox Jews or devout Muslims? Or is it that you need their votes?
Telefilm Canada To Fund New Austin Powers Movie Starring Stephen Harper
-Other Conservative Players Have Now Signed On-
————————————-
Telefilm Canada has been given the go-ahead by the Canadian Conservative government to fund the new Austin Powers movie.
Unfortunately, Mike Myers will not be the lead actor.
In his place, Stephen Harper will be starring as:
DR EVIL, and
F.. BASTARD
And now we have confirmation that Jim Flaherty will be playing the part of:
MINI ME
With Rona Ambrose and Helena Guergis as:
FEM-BOTS
Also back by popular demand are two characters to be played by Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley in the roles of Stephen Harper’s “emissaries”:
F… ME, and
F… YU
Well so much for two good nights sleeps in a row as the Bully on the Hill plots to have the Stars and Strips fly over Ottawa. I an convinced more each day this man PJ’s are Red White and Blue…this morning G&M has the Meet The Press story I talked about yesterday, Yesterdays days cartoon in our paper shows what’s his name (Harper) with using a vacuum cleaner with “Scandals” written on side…soon I guess they will be censored by Canada’s Bible Belt of Neo Con Inc.
The Senate should return it to the Commons for amendment and let the chips, and maybe the governement, fall. By the way, isn’t it a tad hypocritical to have the governement lecture us all on the importance of the Senate vote by Feb. 29 on the crime bill while Senator and Minister Michael Fortier did not even bother to show up for that vote?
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
Jody, Jody, Jody, don’t you realize that most things this gentleman has to say is for “effect”, you just fell in.
Best to ignore his garbage!
OT – Bonnie L posted this last eve on Garth’s previous ‘blog’ and I was pleased to see that the Chronicle Herald has reported it in today’s paper. Forgive me Garth for reposting it in full here as I agree with Bonnie that all should be made aware of it. Actually many of us foresaw what was happening and why.
‘Tightening the screws’
Harper advisor applauds tiny federal surpluses
By ALEXANDER PANETTA The Canadian Press
Mon. Mar 3 – 6:11 AM
OTTAWA — Perhaps the most significant act of the Harper government is being conducted so slowly, steadily, and silently that it has raised barely a whisper of public debate.
After three Conservative budgets, the Government of Canada has been made financially incapable of offering costly new social programs or significant tax cuts for the foreseeable future.
Remember the national day-care plan the Liberals talked about when the country was awash in $13-billion annual surpluses? Or the Kelowna treaty to deal with aboriginal poverty?
Those surpluses are now almost gone.
A mentor and advisor to Stephen Harper applauds the prime minister for working toward a long-standing conservative dream — a less-present federal government — and for doing it without any backlash.
Tom Flanagan says Conservatives are gradually “tightening the screws on the federal government,” leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets and making it harder for Ottawa to spend.
To launch any big-ticket initiatives over the next few years a prime minister — whether Harper or a successor — would either need to risk political suicide or hope for an economic miracle.
That’s because raising taxes, returning to a deficit or slashing existing programs could be the only ways to pay for new spending, barring an unexpected economic boom.
“They’ve gradually re-engineered the system. I’m quite impressed with it,” said Flanagan, who ran the 2004 Conservative campaign and has been a longtime confidant and former chief of staff to Harper.
“They’re boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas . . . The federal government is now more constrained, the provinces have more revenue, and conservatives should be happy.”
With only a minority government, says Flanagan, Harper could never have taken the instant slice-and-dice approach of the Mike Harris Tories during Ontario’s Common Sense Revolution.
Instead, the prime minister has taken one cautious step at a time.
The Tories actually boosted spending dramatically in their first two budgets, often on conservative-friendly measures like tax credits for families, an equalization hike that went largely into provincial tax cuts by the Quebec government, and new military equipment.
There were no major budget cuts, with rare exceptions like the now-scrapped Court Challenges Program and Status of Women Canada which had long been targets for Conservatives.
While overall spending went up, measures were taken to deplete revenues. There were the GST cuts worth more than $11 billion annually, income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, bigger provincial transfers and income-splitting for seniors.
Some other measures will accelerate over time, Flanagan says, like Employment Insurance reforms and tax-sheltered savings accounts from this year’s budget.
Now the economy appears to be slowing down and spending increases are being curtailed considerably to avoid a deficit. The budget surplus has shrivelled from $13 billion last year to projected surpluses of $2.3 billion, $1.3 billion, $3.1 billion, and $4.7 billion over the next four years.
That means Ottawa can no longer wade into provincial jurisdictions like education and health care — forcing it toward a more minimalist agenda if it wants to keep the books balanced.
Flanagan says that in the prime minister’s step-by-step approach, spending control was the last piece to fall into place.
“Harper really didn’t have the option of the cataclysmic approach because you can’t do that without a majority,” he said in an interview.
“So he’s made the incremental approach work — all the time having the insecurity of a minority government.
“It’s really quite a performance, I think . . . Over a period of a few years they’ve got all this in place and they never appeared — at any one point — they never appeared to be making a radical shift.
“But the cumulative impact of all these together is creating a new profile.”
Not only are the Conservatives boxing in the federal spending power in general, said Flanagan, “they’re also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.”
The Tories are fond of pointing to John Diefenbaker and noting that federal revenues as a share of GDP will fall by 2010 to their lowest level since The Chief was in office.
In fact, federal revenues will drop to their lowest level since Lester Pearson’s early days in office. They were at 14.9 per cent of GDP in 1963-64, grew to a high of 19.5 per cent in 1974-75, and are now projected to drop to 15.3 per cent in 2009-10.
But the world is not the same place it was in 1963 — nor are the financial pressures on the Canadian government.
That 1963 figure was posted before Pearson’s Liberal government introduced medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada Student Loans, and before the skyrocketing rates of post-secondary education.
Take Canadian universities as an example.
They’ve had 20 per cent enrolment growth in the last decade alone and face increasingly intense international competition to build world-class research facilities. Canada’s economic future hinges in part on their success.
Recent federal budgets had featured overall spending increases of six per cent a year. This year’s budget still projects an increase — albeit at a much slower rate of three per cent — to $208 billion. But spending may need to be trimmed next year if current surplus projections are correct.
One economist has expressed concern that Ottawa is teetering on the edge of a deficit for the first time in a decade.
RBC’s Derek Holt warned that the federal government will have its “hands tied” for at least three years, and that measures in the latest budget will cut even deeper into the federal kitty for years afterward.
’They’re also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.’
Tom FlanaganHarper advisor
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1041437.html
Pat Martin does not want the Cadman affair before the Ethics committee . This is the NDP’s way of killing the scandal that would benefit the Liberals. Love politics.
Thanks for the expert description Harry S.It is nice to hear about something from someone with experience in the matter.
“The tape’s legit, you cannot acquit.”
Posted by Robert Gibbs to C A I T I – O N L I N E
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-too-was-bribed-by-stephen-harper-with.html
Johnnie Cochran, what do you have to say about this case? “The tape’s legit, you cannot acquit.”
McVety is a very dangerous individual. A few bloggers have been keeping close tabs on him and his lobbying. He is not above threats and, as you can see from some of the above posts, significant attempts to discredit anyone who speaks out against him are normal. (Sound familiar?)
His doctorate by the way is from his own ’school’. He is not a stupid man, but his creditials are a wee bit shady.
He is supported by some radical neo-cons in the US. Money is no object.
He did slip up on national media though and say he managed to get his ‘agenda’ through the back door on the hill. Absolute power can get a wee bit heady and his slip up hopefully alerted Canadians who do not know who he is that this is a gentleman who has some serious issues.
The bloggers who have been tracking him have posted the site where you can email your Senator to alert them to the dangers of C-10;
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator.asp?Language=E
For those of us who claim to be Christians but do not try to be the assistant Holy Spirit in anyone’s life we are busy contacting our MP’s, Senator’s and media. Weasels like McVety are more powerful than most people give them credit for. Sadly, too many people lump him with all Christians. If the McVety’s of this world had their way women would stay home and raise children, sex would only be allowed in marriage, minorities would be marginalized and everyone would go to church on Sunday and give 10% of their income. He is not a prosperity gospel preacher,(they are a different breed) he is not even a ‘real’ minister. He is a predator, out to control what people think and do.
With the Cadman information and this post on McVety you are definitely on a roll Garth. Stay safe!
You keep slandering Christians, which I find very offending. Why not slander other religious groups, which probably have more extreme views – such as Orthodox Jews or devout Muslims? Or is it that you need their votes?
By Catherine on 03.03.08 4:51 am
The first part of your post, that funding for films should not be guaranteed, I agree with. And if it takes a McVety to get the job done, well the rest of us are asleep at the wheel.
But I don’t see Garth slandering Christians. He’s taking the whack job religious types who use the word Christian to task. There’s little Chritianity about them. In that respect, and in the aspect of religious fanaticism, these people can be compared to the Talibhan or any other fundamentalist sect of any faith. And they are dangerous……
Garth, you say that this government is doing these things when only 36% of voters chose them.
Isn’t it fair to say, though, that since the Liberals won’t oppose the Conservatives on anything, therefore tacitly agreeing with and supporting them, that this government has the mandate also of the 30% of voters who supported the Liberals?
And while were at the discussion of fundamentalist Christians, its appropriate at this time of year that they look at the Pharisees. (No, I am not being anti-semitic!)
That’s the whole point of that New Testament Bible story. The Pharisees were too stuck in their literal interpretation to see the real meaning of the Law. The same is true of the Fundamentalist Christians.
My concerns with this bill are not that it prevents depictions of sexuality from being funded.
I’m more concerned with giving the government power to use this legislation to prevent other artistic or cultural endeavours which they find uncomfortable or reflects an opposing viewpoint.
This bill would allow the federal government to cancel tax credits for projects thought to be offensive or “not in the public interest”.
Could such a law be used at some point to prevent funding for shows like “An Inconvenient Truth”, simply because the government of the day believes that the viewpoint it portrays is “not in the public interest”?
There’s a fine line between protecting decency and totalitarian-style silencing of dissent. This is about far more than the portrayal of anal sex.
My view is that no government should EVER be trusted with the power to define that line, especially a government that reflects the opinions of only 36% of the 60% of Canadians who vote.
Sorry to burst your bubble,Garth,but we don’t have a system where number of votes equals number of seats,so quit crying about it.It has served the lieberals quite nicely over the years.As for the rest,all I have to say on this blog is that pornographers and child exploitation shouldn’t be part of any governments funding,and watch how many of your supporters start name calling and defending it.Good thing PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER stands by the morals of the majority of canadians.
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
……………………………
Up your’s, Jody ….
By Harry S on 03.02.08 10:00 pm
Garth,
Time to give him the boot.
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
……………………………
Up your’s, Jody ….
Yes McVety is over the top in his declarations and so are alot of people on both extremes.
You keep slandering Christians, which I find very offending. Why not slander other religious groups, which probably have more extreme views – such as Orthodox Jews or devout Muslims? Or is it that you need their votes?
By Catherine on 03.03.08 4:51 am
Catherine,
I am a Christian. Garth does not offend me. McVety does.
People just don’t get it do they? Where will this lead to? For example, the same type of fundamentalist Christians tied to ban reading Tom Sawyer. How about the death penatly? If you listen carefully, Rob Nicholson answers with -we are not planning to bring back the death penalty “at this time”.
You know, the Conservatives, like Pierre Pollievre, like to toot William S. Buckley who recently passed away. He was one of the orginators of the conservative movement. Well, CPC’rs, William F. Buckley hated what Bush has done to the movement, the damage the religious right have done to the movement, didn’t like what the likes of Bill O’Reilly are doing to the conservative movement and absolutely hated Ann Coulter. He like “respectful” debate NOT bash and trash that we see today.
Too bad you couldn’t follow the leader of the conservative movement with respect. He also had many liberal friends – he did not believe in hatred of someone who thought differently.
The Americans see that Harper is right wing – they just went through it themselves.
What’s next – tell I can’t drink coffee because it’s a stimulent?
Wake up!
I agree with Martin that taking testimony at committee is a waste of time. They shouldn’t be wasting their time playing investigator. Assuming there IS a path to justice on matters such as this still left in this country, I expect the Liberal’s rancor over this to be short-lived.
Senator and Minister Michael Forte, who is he, and when was he elected to the Senate? Minister? of what, responsible to who?
I am a Christian. Garth does not offend me. McVety does.
By Gord on 03.03.08 7:57 am
I’ll second that motion!
Its not secret. It never was. They call it democracy. I call it idolatry, as evidenced that its no fluke that their alliance is one of the Conservative’s biggest cash cows.
There’s nothing new under the sun.
Reinhold Niebuhr’s “Moral Man and Immoral Society” is an excellent study in the assumptions and dynamics of mankind’s tendency towards the corporatist (in the John Ralston Saul sense of the word) will to power of not only religious institutions, although it is a focus.
An excellent current critique in the popular style modern form of this struggle is “The Myth of the Christian Nation” by Gregory Boyd.
afa calling the shots on film content goes, you won’t hear the artists saying this but I believe it should be either no say or no way.
So Garth … are we on the topic of anal sex and it’s suitability for public consumption courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer??
Just think of it Garth … anal sex .. where a man inserts his penis into another person’s (female or male) anus and then ejaculates his semen and deposits his familial DNA sperm into an excrement-laced rectum and lower bowel.
That sir, is the objective medical definition of anal sex in all it’s titillating glory. Not a pretty thing, and it should be kept hidden between the bedsheets, rather than being openly subsidized by the state on Canadian television of screen … agreed ..??!!!
By Harry S on 03.02.08 9:02 pm
Do you say that at Sunday School?
Sex, politics and religion should not be discussed in polite company.
Let’s stick to politics, despite trolling efforts to divert to sex and religion.
And speaking of politics, ERASE THE DISGRACE – ÉCRASEZ L’INFÂMIE!
I would expect no less of this sanctimonious blowhard – Garth
relax Garth, McVety can’t hold a candle to you.
sorry
should read:
An excellent current critique, in the popular style, of the modern form of this struggle is “The Myth of the Christian Nation” by Gregory Boyd.
By Bob R. on 03.03.08 7:53 am
I am having difficulty understanding your post. Are you saying that this has happened in the past and should not be repeated, or just that it should not happen in the future?
Please clarify.
So Garth … are we on the topic of anal sex and it’s suitability for public consumption courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer??
Just think of it Garth … anal sex .. where a man inserts ….
By Harry S on 03.02.08 9:02 pm
Does the Govenment of Canada fund Harry S’ depiction of anal sex?
I am a Christian. Garth does not offend me. McVety does.
BY GORD ON 03.03.08 7:57 AM
Well said
You know who’s a phony and slandering Christianity? McVety – he’s not practising what Christ taught.
Death Penalty: thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21]
Corporate Greed and “Religious Wealth”:
In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a ship out of cords, and drove all from the temple areas, both seep and cattle; he scatter the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables [John 2:13 & 15] Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of gree; and man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12:15] Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 19:23]
“You cannot serve both God and money” [Matthew 6:24]
Separation of Church and State:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s [Matthew 22:21].
Community: Love your neighbour as yourself [Matthew 22:21] So in everyting, do to others as you would have them do to you [Matthew 7:12] If you would be perfect, go , sell what you possess and give to the poor, and and you will have treasure in heaven [Matthew 19:21]
PUBLIC PRAYER & DISPLAYS OF FAITH:
And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hyocrites are: for they lvoe to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the strees, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you. They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thous hast sut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret. [Matthew 6:6 & 7]
In other words Catherine – Christ believe in the separation of church and state and DID NOT believe in organized relgion that makes big money off the business of religion.
McVety is not following what Christ taught.
Got it girl?
The following letter to the editor (The Record) states the issue much better than I can…
Government Initiative Looks Like Censorship
The Stephen Harper government has launched a new initiative which would allow it to deny TV and film productions tax credits, effectively killing them if the government deemed them “offensive.”
One might think that Canada’s government has decided to take on a censorship role in its funding for the arts in Canada.
I find this to be particularly dangerous and disturbing.
Under this policy, would Juno have been made? Is teen pregnancy “offensive” to this government?
We already have a less-than-open government. Now we are given a committee to decide what is worthy of funding. Has the government given the public a list of criteria? Have we been allowed an all-party, let alone a public debate about this? How does one party get to decide that which has traditionally been ours to figure out? Who elected the Conservatives the public conscience? Their role is not that of censor.
These people are not Canada’s father and they don’t get to decide when we should turn off our TVs, or when we should leave a theatre. This is censorship. This is wrong.
Something just occurred to me – how many hours of these films did McVety watch when he found it offensive? Hmmm…..
Also, there are 4 well known evangelists in the US under investigation regarding their wealth/taxes, etc.
Can anyone point me to the exact wording of Bill C-10?
Has it already reached the Senate?
Does it only apply to Cinema?
I am afraid.
I`m afraid if you push this issue of filling butt holes over pot holes the Liberals will lose the next election.
Over twice the number of people that elected the Liberals supported the traditional definition on marriage. You run the risk of raising their ire saying things like “telling 100% of us what our morality should be”, including many Liberals.
Have you given up on the economy like the Conservatives? That is something to be afraid of.
But, it’s pure Charles. I would expect no less of this sanctimonious blowhard, career religious moocher, televangelist, Stephen Harper cheerleader, homophobic crusader and media whore.
Oh phooey Garth, what is there left for me to say about this ….See you used up all the best terms. LOL
Influential Pentecostal leader Roberts Liardon is taking a three-month leave of absence from his ministry “to seek professional and church counseling related to a recent short-term homosexual relationship” (Charisma News Service, Dec. 21, 2001).
*****
Haggard admits ‘sexual immorality,’ apologizes. Evangelical leader contrite after dismissal from Colorado megachurch
Erik Stenbakken / New Life Church via AP
updated 6:28 p.m. ET, Sun., Nov. 5, 2006
*****
Harry S. you are protesting too much. Thank you for your very educational description of anal intercourse. How did you learn about this? Please show your sources as to how you know so much about homosexual and anal intercourse. I would also like to know how Charles McVety knows so much about homosexuality and prostitution. Where did he learn about these things? Please tell! It sounds exciting!!
Harry S., ….it is always interesting to watch someone demonstrate their ‘morale outrage’. Perhaps you should post a list of your sexual practices and fantasies so bloggers here can evaluate your suitablity as our ‘morale compass’.
By Harry S on 03.02.08 9:02 pm
Does the Govenment of Canada fund Harry S’ depiction of anal sex?
By Geoffrey L. on 03.03.08 8:47 am
For once, Harry is correct. The subject matter of the film is not apropriate for government funding. Wasn’t it Trudeau who said that government didn’t belong in the nation’s bedrooms. So they shouldn’t be funding films about what goes on in there either.
Therefore, we should not disregard the message just because the likes of McVety and Harry are the ones delivering it.
Sometimes even they can be correct, although, I would suspect in the case of McVety, for the wrong reasons.
To mandate Telefilm to censor films is morally and politically outrageous, yes. We already have laws that ban obsenity or attacks on groups, whether film or whatever. But I’m also quite concerned that the proposal is to withdraw financing after the film is made, rather than before. This creates huge uncertainty for investors which in all likelihood will damage the industry and it’s ability to create jobs. I’m about to get down to work on a contract for a film, and I suddenly feel like McGuinty– The cultural sector employs over 4% of the Canadian workforce, and I’m just wondering why the federal government is undermining industry in Canada and creating uncertainty for investors.
You know more about money than me, Garth, I’d be interested to hear what you think of the potential economic implications of this too.
woohoo!
Harper sues Dion, key Liberals for libel
the show has started
Harper meddling in U.S. primaries, Democrats say
If any still believe Harper isNOT part of a large organization dedicated to establishing a far right theocracy read this.
They rely on the week, poor, uneducated, and gullible to support their programs both here and in the U.S. It started in the U.S. back in the early 1980’s and for those who really know the modus operandi of the Funnymentalists, it is blatantly clear that they are no different than the Islamic Jihadists, the Taliban, or any other ‘God ordained’ political action group.
Follow them if you would follow Satan (The Adversary), because they are the False Prophets Jesus spoke of, and warned all about! They lie and defend their actions as being in the ‘best interests of God and mankind’, yet they know nothing of God, just convenient rules they say are what God says.
I was in that movement, and thanks to the True Spirit of God opening my eyes, and ears, and heart, and mind, I was SET FREE! These people strike at the very heart of the family teaching psychobabble and hate. Their hate filled exasperations are from their own Dark Side, a place they have not the Spiritual courage and faith to go, much less admit, not even to God.
Stay away from them, they are nothing but fanatical cultists. Stephen Harper is the Dupe in Canada, Bush in the U.S., and they are very dangerous. They totally lack the ability to be honest with themselves, God, or others, and make their lies seem to tbe truth by twisting and turning facts to a state of confusion.
They are a sick minded lot after self-justification, power, and YOUR MONEY!
This is how Iran deals with the homosexual issue. This is perhaps why Iran says that homosexuals don’t exist in Iran. Perhaps this would be the next step in the HarperCON agenda?
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/gay_hanging_iran.jpg
BREAKING NEWS
Stevie is suing the Liberal Party of Canada and Stephane Dion for libel in the Cadman affair.
By Harry S on 03.02.08 9:02 pm
By Harry S on 03.02.08 10:29 pm
………………………………………………………………..
Sheesh people … give me a break ..!!!!
People .. don’t you understand that ‘anal sex’ is not really ’sex’ .. it’s deviance from the norm ….??!!! If the government finances the depiction of anal assault, then the government must be sanctioning the rape of the rectum ..!!!!
In my first posting I openly described the anal sex act, and what do I get ?? … all the moaners, groaner, whiners and neoDeviate Dippers come to the surface and contradict their own principles all because I have gored their feeeelings.
You can show the act but you dare not describe it in detail for fear of offending somebody by hurting their feeeeelings … particularly the gay community and those straight sickos who demean women with anal sex … and then want government to validate their predilections by financing those who would make it public under the guise of ‘art’.
Interestingly, those who support government funding of these trash sex productions deny their opponents the democratic right to demand moral accountability and full transparency from government and those who propagate their filth.
Interestingly, the same critics of my above first posting are curiously silent about my second posting where I offer my logic and opinion on abortion. I’m waiting ….
(Btw Garth …. are you on the record for public and government-approved anal ’sex’ .. and are you pro- or con-abortion ??)
CTV article here on the Harper legal game:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080303/harper_lawsuit_080303/20080303?hub=TopStories
I see in today’s Financial Post they are talking about something far more important than the crap in todays blog.It starts with “THE MOTHER OF ALL SCANDALS-SHAWINIGATE.That’s right,Uncle Jean and his partners diverting millions of taxpayers money to their hotel venture.This will make the Lieberal non existant Cadman story seem like nothing(which it is).Let’s see the lieberals spin themselves out of this one!
Geoffrey L.,
the Government of Canada does not fund Harry S., the Conservative Party does. Thank God they are not quite the same thing.
ERASE THE DISGRACE – ÉCRASEZ L’INFÂMIE!
Harper sues Dion, key Liberals for libel
GLORIA GALLOWAY
Globe and Mail Update
March 3, 2008 at 9:55 AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wharperlibel0303/BNStory/National/home
Huh?
The Cons must be scared stiff. Taking a page from the Mulroney book. the best defense is an offensive offence!
Now that the election bully calls have ceased, the ‘gnu conservatives’ have time on their hands to blunder themselves into oblivion. And their champion McVety is obviously doing a bang up job supplying the rope to help them do so. So let’s not be too hard on him. The rest of us will survive & thrive, while due to the influence of Mc Vety & a few others, we will get to watch the ‘gnu conservatives’ self destruct!
Hi kpn on,
‘Can who everever posted a link to Israeli/palistinian territory pre ‘47 to present day please post it again. Might be Greg W from Ontario.
I’d much appreciate it. TIA
By kpn on 03.02.08 6:18 pm’
KPN, Feel free to repost it again your self. Simple copie the link given from past comment section were you fist saw it.
I’ll add it again this time for you and anyone else that may be interested.
This explains a lot – Palestinian loss of land 1946 to 2000 [pic]
http://www.funhostr.com/p/nab7FZkc/This_explains_a_lot
By the way I found this on http://reddit.com/
The Federal Reserve’s rescue has failed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/03/ccview103.xml
PM suing Liberals over Cadman allegations
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/harper-libel.html
Well, well, well. The Brian Mulroney approach. And Stevie would like us to believe that they aren’t close.
Also, beware the Doctor title most claim. If you check into their so-called credentials they do NOT have an earned doctorayte from a recognized university. Many have purchased their so-called Doctorates from Diploma Mills, or been granted an Honourary Doctorate by some churchbased educational institution which is nothing more than a brain washing school.
Especially beware of those who attempt to practice ‘family counseling or psychological counseling. they are untrained, and are extremely dangerous. In short, they are nothing but elmer Gantry Scam Artisists. Not reqlly any different than some Jihadist Mullah teaching people they will go to heaven and get 12 virgins if they go play suicide bomber. Do not forget the family planning centres (abortion clinics and staff) they have shot, burned, and bombed.
They abhor science, and especially psychology because it contradicts all they believe and teach.
Some of the worst in the U.S. are the Fundamentalist Missionary Churches. I suspect the same is true in Canada. Topping the list of these are churches like Opus Dei, Baptist, Southern Baptist (The largest protestant church, and second only to the Roman Catholic in members, which is based out of Texas), Pentecostal.
People have woken up to the realities, but they younger and desparate still flock to these churches looking for deliverance, and all they get is ‘Wait for jesus to Come and the Rapture!’ They get no real helpful training in dealing with life, its very real realities, or each other, muchless the world at large.
They are the ones behind war, xenophobia, bigotry, anti-semitism, free choice, and free and fair elections, uncontrolled free markets (they LOVE money and power). Their goal is to make their form of Christianity the ruling theocratic power on earth, and they do not care who they have to slaughter to accomplish it.
Such are NOT of God, and their actions have led to massive attacks against all religion by the atheists.
Fortunately, as is the case of all such movements, it has a time limit, and has been reached, but they have yet to realize that reality. Also fortunate is the fact that there are now voices, strong, informed, educated, and spiritually based voices such as Dr. Jim Wallis, speaking out against them.
The battle is far from over however, so maintain your own spiritual vigillance.
This just in…
Harper Sues.
LOL
Let’s just keep on handing him the rope.
Whenever I see or hear the self-serving, self-righteousness of the Christian right I am reminded of the 1927 essay by Bertrand Russell, “Why I am not a Christian”. It is an insightful essay and is worth a critical read.
Whether one agrees with Russell or not, the essay helps to put into perspective the vigorous and vicious attacks so commonly found in the right wing Christian movement.
Another excellent read is Krishnamurti’s “Education and the Significance of Life”.
One quote of special significance is, “To understand the significance of life with its conflicts and pain, we must think independently of any authority, including the authority of organized religion; but if in our desire to help the child we set before him authoritarian examples, we shall only be encouraging fear, imitation and various forms of superstition.”
Here are some of the more provocative quotes from Bertrand Russell’s essay:
“What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason. Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people’s desire for a belief in God.”
“I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.”
“Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching — an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.”
“Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand.”
“You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.”
“A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.”
“That is the idea — that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.”
At the end of the day, if what we believe as individuals causes us to simply pass judgment on others while hiding from improving our own flaws and imperfections then our faith does nothing to improve the human condition.
If what we believe does not lead to increased understanding and compassion for others then our beliefs are misguided and hurtful.
Horrifying and Unnecessary
Bush plans to veto law that requires CIA to abide by the rules of interrogating prisoners contained in the US Army Field Manual. Bush says Army rules are too restrictive
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
OF course, if someone wanted to make a movie about any of a number of biblical passages, one would encounter young and old people f**king–sometimes with relatives–a lot of xenophobic denigration of identifiable groups, and scores of gratuitous violence.
On the other hand, Gibsons’ Passion of the Christ went way overboard with the gore in comparison to the gospels. If a secular film maker in Canada made a movie about some OTHER poor slob’s execution at the hands of the Romans (for instance, a pagan slave owned by a rich Christian family) and used the same kind of graphic imagery, would McVety and his cohorts be fine with giving it tax-credits?
His doctorate by the way is from his own ’school’. He is not a stupid man, but his creditials are a wee bit shady.
He is supported by some radical neo-cons in the US. Money is no object.
By Sherm on 03.03.08 7:14 am
Thanks for previously confirming my statements regarding their alleged ‘doctorates.’
This is delicious. Harper is suing Dion/Ignatieff/others over ConScam with Cadman.
Liberals – clean for 2 years
Cons – dirty for 2 years
ROTLMAO!
I read the complaint
the headline is overstated. its only a notice.
but the game is afoot.
they want the docs, they gotta step up.
Breaking news about a lawsuit against M. Dion, no doubt to try and stop the truth……..hmmm since when can a man who is under investigation for a crime get away with this foolish move…sorry my mistake….Did I say man? It seems like yesterday Danny Williams took out a National add calling hm mm something? then there are a few thousand Canadians that think so alos over the likes of Income Trust, Atlantic Accord and host of others. Oh yes there is one 85 year old Newfoundlander that stated he has Steve Harper’s word in writing and he lied. then started When a man has lost his word he has lost everything> Sad, how could one Bully cause so much disgrace to Canada in such a short time, perhaps he should go South and work for McCain and Bush. Perhaps he would be happy, he sure is not right.
Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
What an interesting topic!
~Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…
By Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
Jody, why is it okay to fund these porn flicks with tax payer’s dollars, but not okay for Harry to supply the definition of what is actually in some of these ‘art films’. It’s funny to see those who think our tax payer’s dollars should be used to make porn flicks, yet call for the censorship of Harry for his reply. I did hear about some of this over the weekend. Apparently one of the films that WE paid for is called ‘Young People F**king’. We’ve had this debate before. I am quite artistic myself and dabble in oils and sketching. I’ve done live nudes several times. However, I still do not understand the artistic merit of a well drawn picture of a very small child being sodomized. Just because you have a good hand, does not mean everything you draw is art.
If I were to draw a picture of Mohammad with a dog’s body, should I get funding? Should people like Ezra be allowed to run it in the local paper?
What about a film of a pretend but very real looking vicious rape? Funding? Yes? No?
I have no religion, but if I say ‘no we shouldn’t’ I am sure I would be labeled a right wing Christian fanatic. Oh well, I’ll just stick it will all the other labels on my back. I say no.
Leasa
Garth, first of all, nobody can control what anybody watches. – Ike
By Ike on 03.03.08 12:19 am
Thats a false statement. If the Cons kill the funding of the Canadian film industry through fear of funds being pulled at the last minute on, well, anything which is what the fall out of this bill will be, it will greatly affect the TV and film content Canadians watch.
The economic numbers are turning ugly. GDP fell to minus .7% in December.
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wgdp0303/BNStory/robNews/?cid=al_gam_nletter_maropen
Flarehty doesn’t get it. Economy shrinks.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/03/03/economyfourth.html
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080302.wusautosales0302/BNStory/robNews/?cid=al_gam_nletter_maropen
And the latest? Stephen Harper sues the Liberals!!!!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/03/harper-libel.html
How about the death penatly? ~ SLG
Mar 03, 2008 04:30 AM
The Canadian Press
CHARLOTTETOWN–A Prince Edward Island MP planned to issue a formal apology today for suggesting in Parliament that former prime minister Brian Mulroney should be hanged.
Charlottetown MP Shawn Murphy, a Liberal, made the comment while heckling another politician Thursday.
“Get tough on crime. Bring forth Brian Mulroney!” Murphy was heard saying in the House of Commons during debate on the Conservative government’s new crime bill.
“Hang him high, hang Mulroney! Let’s get this Mulroney before the courts as soon as possible and hang him high! We gotta get Mulroney, put a noose on his head, put a noose on his head. Get tough on crime.”
Murphy, head of the Commons public accounts committee, issued a statement saying he would apologize for the “overzealous heckling.”
I hear that Monsieur Dion is being sued. Does anybody know what his response has been yet?
Argument weak? Shout louder:
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/03/argument-weak-shout-louder.html
Just wondering why Prince Harry stay in the Middle east was allowed to end at this time? Are the pieces in place and the decided time close at hand for a much bigger shooting war to start???
Have you been paying attention?
Are you informed?
Are you a critical-thinker?
I hope I’m wrong!
I hope it doen’t go biological!
I hope it doen’t go nuclear!
Climate Change is only going to add to destablizing food supplys.
‘How is all end’ 10min video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42
Peak-oil is only going to mean the food there is will cost more.
We’ll be all out of oil soon!
About 30years left only, MAX!
http://www.crudeawakening.net/
This is a reality wakeup call!
Do you care about yourself, your family and other human beings?
We are running out of time to take action to prevent the next apocalips.
We can all fix it, you need to help!
But the time is running short.
Make sure the people how are suppose to help plan are aware of clinate change and peak-oil and the implications.
Do you like food? Do you like a warm and cooled home? Do you like to be alive?
Get involed and take action in time.
“Christ believe in the separation of church and state and DID NOT believe in organized relgion that makes big money off the business of religion.” –slg
slg, I agree completely. Somebody once said that in Jerusalem, Christianity started as a movement, in Greece it became a philosophy, in Rome it became an institution, in Europe it became a culture, and in North America, it became an enterprize.
Most of what we see in the church today does not have much semblance to primitive Christianity which was a movement.
I’m sure Harry S feels much better now, having got that off his…um…chest.
McVety – free speech and all that. Must have helped a lot with Harper’s campaign. Can you imagine knowing that the people who support you are raving nutbars? Cheese those guys off and you should start looking under your car for explosive devices before you get in.
I’ve heard that Harper is going to sue Dion and the Liberal Party for defamation of character. Excuse me while I take a minute to recover from my laughing fit. You can’t defame what’s not there. Reminds me of another case (sorry, but I can’t remember the exact details) where the judge decided that a case for libel was proven but then awarded a settlement for damage to the reputation of the defendant of one cent.
Flanagan is in full spate these days. He seems to rejoice that Harper and his business buddies (and maybe those evangelicals extremists, too) are handling Canadian finances as if they were conducting a bankruptcy sale – selling off the assets at bargain basement prices, pocketing the profits and leaving nothing behind. A thoroughly loathsome man, but he’s probably right at home with the Cons.
Hey Garth…have you been served yet?
On this so called tape, Mr. Harper said he told them they were wasting their time with Mr. Cadman and in fact he knew he was voting with the government and he respected the reason for it. This is what Ralph however said:
“In an interview, Mr. Harper was asked explicitly about the insurance offer,” said Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale during Question Period in the House of Commons. “He did not deny it. In fact, he confirmed an offer was made. He told Conservative officials to ‘make the case’ to Mr. Cadman.
I wonder how Mr. Dion and the others felt when they were served this morning. Now, it’s either prove it, or apologize.
The ball is in their court. Leasa
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1041437.html
By kpn on 03.03.08 6:42 am
They reduced government revenue in the face of a U.S. recession. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!! And they bragged about it!!!!
These dullard New Cons have simply got to go.
And Harper is now suing the Liberals over Cadscam. If he walks like an U.S. suing american, talks like an U.S. court loving american, chances are, especially with his NCC U.S. mulitnational lobbyist past, he is a U.S. american. (and a hypocrite briber to boot) The Liberals have to take this government down, ASAP!
More republican tactics
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/pdf/document2008-03-02-183001.pdf
Garth, looks like you guys dropped the ball on this one in the House as it’s already before the Senate?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/28/film-tax-credits.html?ref=rss
“Bill Siksay, heritage critic for the NDP, said he did not know about this amendment when he voted for the 600-page bill. “To hear now that there may be a clause in it that will allow the government to censor the creative process in Canada comes as a significant shock and surprise,” he told CBC News”.
McVety and Hoban were on BNN’s Squeezeplay (Amanda Lang, Kevin O’Leary) discussing the bill. 40 minutes in ~ http://broadband.bnn.ca/bnn/?vid=35148
There are two issues as I see it. First is censorship. Fight to keep government oversight out of the arts industry, fight the bill.
Second issue is Kevin O’Leary’s and I agree, “show me a return on investment!” When are we going to wean the industry off the teat of the taxpayer?
Hoban claims that this is a $5B industry employing 125K people, sooo if he needs 20% tax credits to make a $26mil movie (Splice), why not pay back the credit from box office receipts.
Tax credits tend to pay for a lot of crap no one wants to see, perpetuating a closed loop of subsidized employment. Seems to me we have an internationally reputable industry that no longer needs help? If that’s not true pls elaborate.
Does the government actually track the products produced, at what cost and what the ROI is year over year? Let’s open the books and evaluate the end product on market appeal like most businesses. I don’t have an issue with subsidization as a launching pad, put let the film companies operate like any other free market business.
I also wouldn’t worry about McVety’s religious furor. As mentioned Canadians are secular and will never have the groundswell to duplicate the USA in this regard.
I only have your information to go by but this is why religious people scare me. They think they are always right even when they are not. I’m starting to see a pattern as well, the people who fight against homosexuality the hardest seem to be closet homosexuals themselves. Just look at the string of big name preachers in the states who were caught in the act.
Mr Garth TurnerMP,
‘Be very afraid’.
I’m not afraid anymore!
I’m made a hell and not going to take it any more!
What are all the MP’s, all parties going to about this VERY BAD Harper-gang Governmnet?
The oposition better get there acts together very very soon and do what is right for all Canadians or be prepard to face the voters rath in the next election!
Even I’m getting ready to run for office if you MP’s don’t get your act together soon, and do what is right.
What about you other blogers out there?
Just my too cents.
“A mentor and advisor to Stephen Harper applauds the prime minister for working toward a long-standing conservative dream – a less-present federal government – and for doing it without any backlash.
Tom Flanagan says Conservatives are gradually “tightening the screws on the federal government,” leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets and making it harder for Ottawa to spend.”
Not only are the Conservatives boxing in the federal spending power in general, said Flanagan, “they’re also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.”
posted by By Bonnie L on 03.02.08 10:03 pm
Check this piece out regarding Federal Spending Power and Harper’s agenda…
“The Harper Peril for Canadian Federalism” by Tom Kent from IPPR
http://www.irpp.org/po/index.htm
“Tom Kent, present at the creation of cooperative federalism in the 1960s, is concerned that Stephen Harper’s version of classical federalism, closely respecting the constitutional division of powers, “could provide cover for a federal government to implement a neo-conservative agenda by shuffling national responsibilities to the provinces.” While our Founding Editor supports Harper’s plan in the Throne Speech to strengthen the economic union by eliminating trade and mobility barriers between provinces, he strongly opposes proposed limits to the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions. “The Constitution,” he writes, “does not limit, never has limited, federal spending.”
From the piece…about 6 pages:
“Direct federal spending empowers people. There is no reason for it to encroach on provincial delivery of services people want. It can be deployed in full collaboration with the provincial governments. Perhaps that is what Harper really intends, the substance beneath the rhetoric. If so, he will simply be clarifying the way spending power can be most effective. The indications are otherwise. They are that his objective is to curb Ottawa’s role in social policies for all Canadians. If that proves to be the nature of his legislation, it will indeed change the federation. It will threaten the greatest damage to Canada since, 70 years ago, governments turned their backs on the miseries of the Great Depression because the power to act was thought to lie with provinces that lacked the means. Legislation that significantly limits the federal spending power would have to be at all costs resisted. The national interest would require that national parties – Liberals, NDP, Greens – sink other differences and join in ensuring that the Harper government is defeat in Parliament and the polls.”
Be very afraid of this coming to pass.
My dear
slavesfellow Canadians,As Leo Strauss and the previous Pope said themselves, “Do as I say, not as I do.” There are good reasons why we must protect ourselves, the
Masters of the UniverseLeaders of the World, from accusations that are to apply toslaves like youmembers of the unenlightened public! The religious leaders we trust most are special and must be sheltered from earthly legal accusations in temporal courts!By slg on 03.03.08 8:59 am
Quite right, SLG. When I think of figures that were true spiritual leaders of our time and times past, Martin Luther King comes to mind. Did he hop into bed with politicians? Or did he make a case to the masses and let the masses decide. Did Martin Luther King preach censorship? Nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92-r05TH9qs
Voters, its all about what you put on your plate. What we eat becomes a part of us. We are products of our own environment and our diets, the waters we drink and the air we breath and the earth we stand on is a part of that environment.
But what we hear and see does not become a part of us if we have not chosen it. How can we understand the enemy or propaganda itself without knowing what it is? For it is written.. (I’m paraphrasing here) “its not what they eye see’s or the ears hear that offends thee, but what comes from ones mouth.”
“If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out!”
“Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still.” Does this not suggest free will to be respected? Tell me, does God want zombies? Puppets? It appears the hypocrite McVety does… and he has a quick audience in Stephen Harper. How many times has democracy failed in the Conservative party with their choice to run a “focus on the family” candidate?
Waaaaaaaa, Harper’s gonna sue DION and the LPC over the Cadman affair!
What a baby!
Garth are you part of the Liberal group Harper served a libel suit against?
It’s all on the CTV website.
Just shows how desperate the guy is!
Who’d have thunk it?
Hi Jody on 03.02.08 9:23 pm
‘Why do you continue to allow this Harry S to contaminate this blog? I don’t get it…’
Jody, Do you believe in free speech?
Are you so shure of you ideas that you feel Harry S might not have an idea worther hearing?
My understanding is that this is a political blog for citisens (Even ones that don’t spell very well like me) to
share ideas and thoughts, hopefully to make this a better counrty for us all to live in.
Mr Turner does look at the comments people make and doesn’t post then if offencive or over the top rants.
I think Garth has not posted a few of my really bad rands (We all can have bad days).
If Harry S has a thought or idea, and he can through reason tell others, I think that is fine. It doesn’t mean you automatically need to agree.
Not every one is a skilled communicator of ideas. Communication is a very complex process.
I for one am glad Garth has this open blog of anyone to take part in if they choise, with-in reason.
Does McVety have connections with REAL Women, the anti-feminists? Did he have a hand in the cuts to SWC, Status of Women Canada? I wouldn’t be surprised.
I think I am more worried about Tom Flanagan boasting that Stephen Harper is achieving his objectives by stealth rather than the boasting of Mcvety’s access to Rob Nicholson et al. Most Canadians will see through McVety’s bombast but according to Flanagan, the Conservative government have successfully limited future governments bringing forward any important social programmes ( Kelowna Accord, child care spaces) for the foreseeable future. This should be a much greater concern for all people who believe that there are times when those who are less fortunate should be given a hand up. Stephen Harper’s government has done to the country what Mike Harris did to Ontario.
Does anybody know what happened to the articles on the Liberal web-site at http://www.liberal.ca ?
I cannot any longer find the article that was posted on February 29, 2008, accusing, “Harper Knew of Conservative Bribery.”
Nor can I find the one that was posted on February 28, 2008, entitled, “Harper Must come Clean About Allegations of Conservative Bribery, Liberals Say.”
Does anybody know if these articles are still there? Where are they?
QUESTION !!!!Is it time to take away the tax exemption from religious orders? Especially the ones who seem to make some serious bucks. What would you say to that McVety?
These aren’t religions, they’re businesses that are run by sociopaths, snake oil salesmen who are very very good at hijacking religion and if were not carefull, they’ll do worse.
Garth:
You should respect your foes for their audacity and abilities. Their verasity can be left to others to discern. The natives say that the wolf makes the caribou strong. We need our enemies…it is our friends who cause us the most consternation…bless them. Beware, lest you become like the fly that sat upon the axletree of the chariot wheel and said,”what dust do I raise.” Aesop I believe.
By Catherine 8:51AM
Nice post, Catherine…shows you are a woman of principle and morals and a true Conservative. I believe Garth is enabling the slandering of Christians more than actually slandering them. In any case, one should remember “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” I think it is time for the Liberals/NDP to stop pandering to the basest in our society and show enlightened leadership…get off their bellies as it were.
I tried to comment earlier, but it didn’t get through, so here is a short version:
I think it is time for a brave politician (nudge nudge) to become a Canadian Senator Grassley and do some snoopin’ in the church coffers…
Also, imagine if a film like Passion of the Christ was made in Canada but it dealt with some OTHER poor slob pagan victim of Roman Crucifixion. I wonder if McVety would consider this film to have excessive violence?
On the other hand, there are tons of Bible stories with graphic violence, sex, kinky sex and violence,hate literature and so forth, as I tried to explain here: http://tinyurl.com/yuqwyd.
So Harper is suing Dion, Ignatieff, Goodale and the whole LPC over Cadscam articles published on the liberal.ca website. The Notice of Libel is published at http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/pdf/document2008-03-02-183001.pdf
I have one reservation about this proceeding: does it mean that Cadscam now is before the courts and can no longer be discussed?
I remember sitting at the kitchen table eating breakfast before school and my mother looking out the window at all the “Good Catholics’ going to morning mass. She’d shake her head and say “just look at em trottin’ of to church and It’s for Nothing But “SHOW”.Making out How ‘HolY’ they are and as soon as Mass is Over they’re Standing Outside the Church Door Running Down Thier nieghbour. They’d be better off staying home for they’re Not Foolin’ God”. nothing wrong with some religious teaching ,but like my parents you should always be a Little skeptic.
I’ve worked in Factories most of my working life and I’ve met every corner of the World and of every Religion and what I Found out was We’re all the Same and We want the Same things for our children.I worked with one Christian man and one day I swore in friont of him he politely asked me no to use that kind of language for he never used it and he didn’t like hearing it. Now I could’ve said FU but instead I respected his wishes for I knew he Practiced what he Preached and when he was around I at least tried to watch my mouth.Oh and he wasn’t the Preaching type just a Nice guy so I guess it was easy to do as he asked.:>)
try the other internet
The silence from Monsieur Dion to this point has been deafening.
What was he thinking?
There are good and bad people in both the Lib and Con parties.
There are good and bad people among those who go to church, and among those who do not go to church.
What is unconscionable is when people start taking swipes at EVERY ONE who belongs to a certain identifiable group, be it “Catholic,” or whatever (and I am no Catholic.
I wish that we would all apply these statements about judging others to ourselves. Can we not see the log in our own eye when we disparage all people within an identifiable group in this way?
We tend to judge others by what we see, and ourselves by what we intend.
do we really have to wait until tomorrow?
Well Harper just made the CadScam the biggest news event of the year.
I think Harper really shot himself in the foot over this issue.
There has been much blather in the blogosphere that this issue would die because it had no merit,… that may have been true,… But now it HEADLINE NEWS ACROSS THE NATION and everyone will be talking about it.
Harper really did a Homer Simpson on this one D’OH!!!!
The chances of this falling out of the media spotlight. Zero.
I don’t know how other Canadian or the majority of Canadian will view this, but I don’t think this was a terribly smart move on Harper behalf.
Too bad Harper didn’t have the guts to call Liberals Traitors and Taliban lovers outside the house.
He is the whiniest P.M. we have ever had and to make things worse in the two years since he has been in office our economy has dropped off and we are in trade deficits.
And please can someone tell me why he has not offered up any explanation of his admission of a financial offer to Cadman in his taped interview?
Steve, just tell us what you meant and maybe, just maybe, we will believe you.
I wonder if Steve has looked at the hundreds of web sites/blogs that accuse him of bribery and criminal activity. Is he going to sue everyone who thinks he is a criminal and writes about it?
I hear that Monsieur Dion is being sued. Does anybody know what his response has been yet?
By Ike on 03.03.08 10:47 am
`Oh shit`
Somebody once said that in Jerusalem, Christianity started as a movement, in Greece it became a philosophy, in Rome it became an institution, in Europe it became a culture, and in North America, it became an enterprize.
Most of what we see in the church today does not have much semblance to primitive Christianity which was a movement.
By Ike on 03.03.08 10:52 am
How right you are on those points Ike!
The Gnostics of Christ’s day, and the Essene movement at Qumran would not recognize their faith today in North America especially. I doubt they would have recognized it a mere century after Christ was with us.
re: the NAFTA flap
Where is the Conservative’s denouncement of McCain’s linking our trade to our military commitments?
I’ve always believed our distaste for relating the two is one of the things that makes us different from our good friends to the South.
Do you think its easy to make facsimiles?
By Leasa 10:58 AM
Yes Leasa the balls are in their court…the court of democracy. The Cons run to their lawyers shouting make some smoke, make some smoke. Whassa matter…the Cons are elected to work on behalf of Canadians but turn all responsibility and decision making over to the lawyers, commissions etc. What the hell are we paying them for…they have no brains, ability, integrity or perspecasity and as for balls, they have thrown them over to the Liberal court… the Cons are dunderheads and dumb asses.
Even I’m getting ready to run for office if you MP’s don’t get your act together
What about you other blogers out there?
By Greg W., Oakville on 03.03.08 11:13 am
I`m a little too busy supporting western separation I was forced into after reform and absolving an elected federal government has fallen on deaf ears.
Central Canada has run our government for decades and you must have noticed the shape the`re in. The old reform motto of `reform or else` looks like it`s down to or else.
3 strikes
International investors lost faith in Canada in 2002. Chretien couldn`t turn it around, Martin couldn`t restore confidence and Harper has failed with 1 months work over the last 24.
I have one reservation about this proceeding: does it mean that Cadscam now is before the courts and can no longer be discussed?
By Herb on 03.03.08 12:39 pm
Good point Herb. A standard tactic of the guilty is to silence their critics as soon as possible.
Lawyer the issue to death. Conrad Black tried that too, but he is now nicely incarcerated in prison in Florida, and about to get a reality check on how important he ISN’T.
Harper really has pushed the button now, and will regret it for a long time to come.
Actually, I am glad he has made this silly move because he has repeatedly demonstrated he has little comprehension of the law, and even less desire to abide by it.
He will now come to grasp the meaning of The Rule of Civil Proceedings. Who knows it may rub off in QP as well? I doubt it!
Perhaps the government should get out of the business of funding film producers, gay sex or otherwise, while Canadians are overtaxed and underserved. I doubt very much that Canadians who are struggling to pay the bills or waiting for essentail medical treatment give a shit whether or not a film contains anal sex. I suspect that they would prefer that the government spend their money a little more wisely.
Do you think its easy to make facsimiles?
By Brian Dondo on 03.03.08 1:15 pm
Yes it is, I used to run a ditto machine ditto machine ditto machine ditto machine
This entire series of unfortunate events (unfortunate for the Far Right) is gaining mass and momentum and it is encompassing all or North America (U.S. and Canada, not Mexico), and will swell even larger very soon.
We have a PM in dire straights, as well as his so-called ‘party’, and he may be getting served himself for libel by Barack Obama. Wouldn’t that be interesting to watch?
This is the year of the Rat (How did the Chinese know so long ago? What a perfect name), or should that be Lemmings with all the scrurrying and spin going on? Where is the Maytag Repairman?
All we need now is Bush to be indicted for War Crimes.
Calling Mr. Clean! Please report to work, have we got a job for you!
On the other hand, there are tons of Bible stories with graphic violence, sex, kinky sex and violence,hate literature and so forth, as I tried to explain here: http://tinyurl.com/yuqwyd.
By Jim Linville on 03.03.08 12:09 pm
I wonder what McVety does with ‘The Song of Solomon’? It is one of the most beautiful and erotic pieces of literature ever written.
At the end of the day, if what we believe as individuals causes us to simply pass judgment on others while hiding from improving our own flaws and imperfections then our faith does nothing to improve the human condition.
If what we believe does not lead to increased understanding and compassion for others then our beliefs are misguided and hurtful.
By TS on 03.03.08 10:17 am
Which is why I repeatedly state ‘Religion will Tell you what to think. Philosophy will teach you HOW to think!”
“Religion gives RULES, Philosophy gives UNDERSTANDING from which we derive WISDOM!”
By Sue 12:59PM
The Catholics I know did not stand around after Mass dissing their neighbours as your mother so obviously dissed Catholics. Catholics ran hospitals, schools, charities and generally donated more money and more free time to good causes than any other group…they still do. They have a 2000 year history of service to their fellow man regardless of his creed or race….often paying for their efforts with blood and the scorn of others. They gave us public health, universities, schools, hospitals and a love for public service. Catholic children are introduced to the Golden Rule at an early age….some cherish it and do good…others don’t and do whatever. My mother never dissed anybody, my father never dissed anybody and the many Protestant neighbours I knew and know never dissed anybody…a reflection of their Christian upbringing.
Catholics in both World Wars were noted for their bravery, sense of duty and brought great honour to their units and country. Good Christians are the salt of the earth and God help us all when that ceases to be so.
Why didn’t your mother haul her fat ass out of the house on a Sunday morning with her kids in tow and head for the nearest church. God knows, it would have done you a lot more good than harm.
Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale during Question Period in the House of Commons. “He did not deny it. In fact, he confirmed an offer was made. He told Conservative officials to ‘make the case’ to Mr. Cadman.
By Leasa on 03.03.08 10:58 am
I see the good ship Liberal still sinking from the same leak.
Curious it`s only a civil action when accusing someone of committing a criminal act falsely, for gain especially on the scale of the official opposition is consider criminal slander. Good thing the rule of law does not apply to politicians and those in authority including those associated or control a block of votes.
Denying public funding is not “state censorship”. If the state funds art, they need som sort of oversight as to what they are funding. You have to have a moral basement in order to dole out funding. What would yours be Garth? If you have one, would that be censorship?
I am against all public funding of films. Only bad art needs funding, good art does not.
What he learned from the Keen case is its a great way to get the other side to pony up their documents. His willingness to threaten to play it out in this case leads me to believe it was a rather painful lesson.
By ron p on 03.03.08 11:58 am
I SAY Tax any church that has over 200 members. Treat it as a business and examine its books as such.
The Mega Churchs are true enterprises and should not recieve any tax breaks whatsoever. What would Jesus think of huge TV studios, plasma screens, 10,000 watt sound systems, stages, lighting systems, recreation centres, and all the other massive infrastructure that turns religion into a multi-billion dollar BUSINESS?
Preachers riding in limos, living in multi-million dollar mansions, and having private jets.
Think he was pissed with the Money Changers in the Temple? Ho Boy! We ain’t seen nothing yet. As the old saying goes ‘Jesus is coming again, and BOY IS HE PISSED!’
Garth, What is your moral basement on Art funding? Do you have one? This is all common sense.
My take, cut all art funding, only bad art needs funding, good art will survive the market place.
Bill Muskoka
Bill, as I said before “We are all living in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars. Seems that you are looking at the muck too much lately. Buck up Marine, you can do better. The next time I say “single that man out” give me a reason.
Yes it is, I used to run a ditto machine ditto machine ditto machine ditto machine
By not again on 03.03.08 1:32 pm
Too bad it wasn’t a Mimeograph machine instead…Remember how they were always so True Blue? LOL
There`s a new scandal coming out tomorrow. If you don`t hear one by noon, start one.
If this were not so tragic for central Canada I`d say these have been the pinnacle times of government dysfunctionality. No government leadership save a few band-aids and no opposition pushing the government to get things done for the people.
I really feel for all you people out east blaming one political party for one thing, another for something else. Well it`s your future so if you don`t want to take a step back so you can see it`s our federal government that has failed continuously over decades while keeping the pot stirred enough that most people either hope for the best, or no longer give a rats ass.
It would appear to be the right time to ask this question still unanswered from last year.
What has our elected federal government done right in the last 40 years?
No rush to answer, you`ve got till the US credit card debt shoe hits the floor.
“I have one reservation about this proceeding: does it mean that Cadscam now is before the courts and can no longer be discussed?” –By Herb on 03.03.08 12:39 pm
No, it only means that one should not make outrageous accusations without evidence. There is freedom of speech, but once you speak, be ready to defend what you say with evidence if you are smearing the reputation of another.
By Michael on 03.03.08 1:57 pm
Hey, Marines deal with muck as a profession! We train in muck, crawl though muck, and can slither into a combat zone in it and smile all the way! Muck is GOOD! LMAO!
Speaking of the stars. Have you been able to enjoy the absolutely crystal clear nights we have had recently? I haven’t seen the stars that brilliant in years.
This Cadman affair is a blessing from heaven for Dion … it wipes out any other news story from the headlines .. like the Liberal party continuing to shore up the Conservative government on the Budget and avoiding an election.
I bet the Liberal MSM will hardly even mention the Budget votes and Dion caving again … and play up the Cadman affair … because we know that the Canadian masses cannot digest more than one story at a time.
Of course it won’t look so good if Dion has to apologize to Harper … or be required to pay the Conservative legal bill if Dion dares go to court.
Ike,
re your 2:36 PM, I don’t mean people flapping their gums as usual. Idle speculation can continue.
I mean serious discussion, especially by people who might be involved, such as Harper, his emissaries to Cadman, and politicians and spokesmen. In other words, does this take the issue off the table?
To be a Liberal these days, one needs to have a rope, know how to tie a noose, make wild accusation and public verdicts, hang his opponents, eh?
This explains a lot – Palestinian loss of land 1946 to 2000 [pic]
http://www.funhostr.com/p/nab7FZkc/This_explains_a_lot
By the way I found this on http://reddit.com/
By Greg W., Oakville on 03.03.08 10:12 am
Thx Greg
By SUE on 03.03.08 12:50 pm
Sue I can relate to part of what you said. I lived just outside of Mtl. & in the Laurentians as a youngster in small towns where if you didn’t go to church on Sundays (in our case Anglican) you were looked down upon. We children were forced to attend and part way through go to Sunday School. I hated it. I was confirmed at 10 or 11. I did not want to be confirmed & kicked up a fuss on the steps to the church. At that time, the discussion was which woman’s hat was the nicest – kid you not. My father refused to attend (a Lutheran), could not understand all the getting up & down, and said he could be a Christian in his own house. At that time, I recall several Catholic children having to be home at 6 pm so they could pray at home before supper. BTW, Catholic priests would visit my Mother (who had 6 children already) telling her she should have another and she wasn’t even Catholic. Back then, people gave $10 to the Catholic church and the church would give you a receipt for $50. for your tax return. It was well known.
As soon as we moved into Mtl. my Mother stopped going to church – the pressure on her was no longer there. Hypocritcal yep. Funny how Catholics, once early Sat. eve. service started in PQ, went so they didn’t have to get up early Sunday morn. to attend. Hypocritical – yep. My MIL, in France, is one of those so-called devout Catholics – she attends Sat. eve. service, but, IMHO, she’s not what I call a real Christian in so many ways. Her husband won’t attend and neither does her sons, nor grandchildren.
My idea of being a Christian is how you treat those less fortunate who need a hand up. I don’t see the ultra right such as Stevie and his minions as being Christian. To me, their policies demonstate they are the opposite.
If u r so aganist this conservative initiative on free speech then plse explain the Liberal position on the following? :
1) Does Liberals believe in fair copyright as outlined by micheal geist?
2)Will the liberals support the private members bill of Dr Keith Martin on section 13 (Human Rights comission) which is being used by various extremist groups in Canada to attack the rights of free speech??
In any case, one should remember “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” I think it is time for the Liberals/NDP to stop pandering to the basest in our society and show enlightened leadership…get off their bellies as it were.
By Michael on 03.03.08 12:03 pm
You’re entire statment is a gut buster in more ways than one. Please enlighten us… how did Jesus die again? Could you please explain to us, again how the Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting? Its has been found difficult and untried, you say? How did Jesus die again?
I am against all public funding of films. Only bad art needs funding, good art does not. – Ted
By Ted, Richmond Hill on 03.03.08 1:50 pm
So… what you are saying is that Canadians can compete with Hollywood now, that without subsidies, we are on fair footing with the U.S. film industry… with a higher currency and a tenth of the market, we can compete, you say? With no Canadian content market sector regulations for share guarantee’s, we can compete. Uh huh…
Please tell us how we can compete with such a large U.S. market without regulations and government incentives and get back to us as to why. I’d love to hear it. While you are at it, you can tell us why you think all we should have is foreign media and entertainment once you’re ideal is a proven bust and how this can be good for all Canadians. I’d love to hear that too!
Bill-Muskoka on 03.03.08 1:52 pm,
Are you really that prejudiced that you have no concept of how difficult it is for churches in this country merely to survive? You pretend to be a “Christian” and yet you would destroy the fellowship of Christianity which is provided by churches. Often these institutions are the only source of support that elderly people have in rural areas of this country. Even if you spirituality is merely a function of your individualism would you deny the poor one of the few sources of fellowship? Taxing these churches would make it impossible for them to survive when they are surviving by a thread already.
Ted:
Yours is an arguable position, but, you as well as the antipornographers are missing the value of the film tax credit system.
What it does do is promote the entire industry in Canada. Film-making is not just actors, producers, and directors. They go whereever they can makle the film. Some of the things they need are prop suppliers, costumers, caterers, trailer rentals, extras, etc. By making it a good thing tax-wise to invest in films, you build over time the infrastructure needed to attract producers and directors to work here. Every time a movie is made there’s a ton of work for support staff and there’s a ton of money spent in the community. Those support staff pay taxes, and every dollar spent on lights and food and sets and hotels, etc brings in 5 cents of GST for every dollar.
Now I don’t know about you, but one of the things that made Canada prosperous in the 50s and the 60s was all the money that was spent on manufacturing infrastructure during the war – and that prosperity was good for Canada. Since then our policies have slowly driven manufacturing out of the country. Film making is a manufacturing process, and it is incredibly labour intensive – do you want to drive those good paying jobs out of the country too?
Michael: I know many ungodly, unchurchly people who are good, kind and decent. They serve their country, raise fine children, donate their time and resources to help others and rarely diss anybody.
Goodness is not restricted to church goers.
Bill-Muskoka on 03.03.08 1:36 pm
Song of Solomon is lovely isn’t it Bill? No worries that McVety has ever read it. He’s a new testament kinda guy and just cherry-picks the rest.
Hey Herb, about Cadscam being before the courts and no longer being discussed? Are you in BC by any chance?
Geo
By brain on 03.03.08 10:43 am
Au contraire, Bon Ami!! (tongue firmly planted in cheek)
You said -
[i]Thats a false statement. If the Cons kill the funding of the Canadian film industry through fear of funds being pulled at the last minute on, well, anything which is what the fall out of this bill will be, it will greatly affect the TV and film content Canadians watch. [/i]
My understanding is that the intent is to pull the funding “after” production. If so, it’ll kill the Canadian film industry right off the hop. Afterall, where is the funding for production going to come from? If funds aren’t available during production, the industry is dead.
Second, it’ll only kill Canadian funded production. We’ll all still have access to all of the offensive “to some” material we wish to watch. It just won’t be produced in Canada or by those who would rely on gov’t of Canada funding.
It’ll definitely be a dark day in Canadian history if this bill passes.
People like McVety should not be extended the right to have any sort of contact with elected officials, direct or indirect. If Charlie boy wants an ear in Parliament, he should be paying taxes like the rest of us, not using his tax exempt status to provide for his “homies” in Ottawa. By that I mean that somewhere here in the city, he has a place where he provides food and lodging for lobbyists to do his “good work”, and we pay the freight.
By Judy on 03.03.08 7:40 pm
You said -
Goodness is not restricted to church goers.
I couldn’t agree more. It comes from having a good heart and decent moral values, not arse splinters from a church pew.
Even if you spirituality is merely a function of your individualism would you deny the poor one of the few sources of fellowship? Taxing these churches would make it impossible for them to survive when they are surviving by a thread already.
By C. B. Innes on 03.03.08 7:08 pm
I agree, which is why I put a proposed cap of 200 members. That figure comes from the concept that a ‘church’, i.e., congregation of believers, should be a small group who can actually be ministered to. Perhaps a cap of 400 would make you feel better? Remember they are usually part of a larger denomination as well.
I say this having been on the ‘inside’ (involved in the management and operation) of a small and a mega church. Believe me there is a definite line between pastoral care and egomania for such organizations.
Bigger is not necessarily better. In many parts of the world a ‘church’ is a group of similar believers who gather together in their homes, not some huge edifice to wealth.
The idea that church’s need to compete based on size, aesthetics, and who has the mostest building, is not one bit scriptual…it is solely manmade.
It was a suggestion. The chance of politicians ever finding those size of cajones is nil! Tehere is a far greater probability that those who grasp faith from a spiritual understanding will simply abandone the mega churches and actually worship Gopd, rather than some charismatic entertainer. What a concept, eh?
If I create what I call ART is it really ART? Perhaps I’m not the one that should make that determination. Although I think a determination should be made.
The question becomes WHO decides, WHAT criteria should be used, WHEN or at what phase of my ‘creation’. I have difficulty deciding these points.
Open blogs cause 90% turmoil and 10% productive dialogue – just an impression after reading 182 comments. If blog censorship could let the 10% through then whatever the subject is would move forward much faster. But it gets back to WHO, WHAT and WHEN.
Personally, I think I have to put up with the 90% and do my own screening rather than trust a WHO to use WHAT and WHEN to give me the 10% that’s important. Now back to ART…
Until the Government of the day is able to tell us WHO, WHAT and WHEN makes the judgment to refuse funds the legislation is incomplete. Isn’t it the Parliamentary process to complete the job. JUST GET ON WITH IT!
More government control of information to the media…
“How Canada Muzzles Its Scientists
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 03. 3.08
Business & Politics ”
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/canada-muzzles-scientists.php
The published link to a .pdf of a government Powerpoint presentation is VERY worthwhile…
“Media relations at NHQ will coordinate all media calls coming into the department
•
Upon receiving a media call, the recipient will inform
their direct supervisor and contact media relations
•
Media relations will work with individual staff to decide how to best handle the call; this could include:
-Asking the programme expert to respond with approved lines
-Having Media Relations respond
-Referring the call to the Minister’s Office
-Referring the call to another department
•
Once the call is returned, Media Relations will log the call and close the file”
By Bob Quinn, a couple of steps down from Mr. Baird according to published org chart: http://www.ec.gc.ca/introec/org_chart_e.htm
Perhaps the Harpercons can hire Pat Robertson to screen productions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkgyJApotZg&feature=related