CAN CANADA SURVIVE ANOTHER THIRTY YEARS OF THIS?

Can anyone in Canada imagine going on for another three decades in the manner we have gone on during the past thirty years? Can anyone imagine a three decade continuation of the ballooning waste of tax dollars we have witnessed over the past three decades? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of the past rate of encroachments by the Federal one party state government into Provincial jurisdiction? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of this broken partial ‘democracy’ where almost everything is appointed by a PM ‘elected’ by a minority of voters? Can anyone imagine where we will end up with another three decades of a negative, divisive one party state party government propping itself up by dissing dishonestly our largest trading partner and dividing men against women and ethnic groups against other Canadians? Can anyone imagine another thirty years of being governed by a government that will do anything in its power to stymie genuine democratic modernization no matter what the cost in regional resentments leading to the possible dismemberment of the country?

No, we cannot imagine going on as we have been for the past three decades because we know another thirty years like this will spell the end of our country. For most of its history, Canada has been governed by the ‘Liberal’ party of Canada, and so most of our problems, (from the many ongoing decades of residential school abuse, to the divisive and probably illegal encroachments into provincial jurisdictions) are the fault of this ‘Liberal’ one party state party government.

No, we cannot imagine another thirty years of being governed by a hypocritical party known for the dishonesty of “running on the left, and governing on the right�. How can we take anything this type of political machine says, seriously, given their record of breach of trust?

Another thirty years of corrupting and corrupt governance by Canada’s one party state party, where nothing can be believed, as Jack Layton found out recently, is simply not possible. The attempt by Ontario voters to re-impose this rejected party on the West and Quebec, simply means the end of the original intent of Confederation, and thereby, the end of Canada. This Liberal Party has almost destroyed the country with its corrupt and arrogant legacy of one party rule. Canada’s problems are not economic; they are political, and these ever worsening problems of governance fall squarely at the feet of this continuously centralizing, expanding, corrupt and corrupting, one party state party. Genuine and far-reaching democratic reform is the only option Canada has left if Canada is to be saved over the long term. All opposition parties have come out in favour of democratic reform. Canada has only been a one party state for so long because the Liberal Party has not seen fit to allow democratic reform.

E

Posted by: edward mills at December 29, 2005 02:23 AM

---

The independent evidence you're looking for comes from Emerson himself, who admits (in the CP story posted on CTV) that he was aware of what it meant:

B.C. Grit cabinet minister in blog controversy

Updated Thu. Dec. 29 2005 1:26 AM ET

Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — The Liberal election campaign has taken another hit from the blogosphere after its star B.C. candidate used a possibly insulting term to describe NDP Leader Jack Layton.

Industry Minister David Emerson is quoted in a blog written by Jamie Elmhirst, the federal Liberals' B.C. president, as referring to Layton's "boiled dog's head smile.''

An NDP spokesman said the term is an English translation of a Chinese insult.

Elmhirst referred to the comment, made at a pre-election dinner, after suggesting Layton's friendly remarks about maverick New Democrat Svend Robinson during an early-December campaign stop in Vancouver were "a touch insincere.''

"How did Minister Emerson describe his style at our convention dinner?'' Elmhirst writes in the Dec. 5 blog entry.

"Oh yes, he said that Jack Layton had a boiled dog's head smile. That would have made even me wince if I hadn't have been laughing so hard.''

Stanley Tsao, an NDP campaign spokesman who handles Chinese media, said Wednesday the phrase is Cantonese in origin and can be taken a number of ways depending on the context.

Tsao said Emerson's remark showed "arrogance and disrespect,'' especially in light of comments about Layton and his wife that appeared in another Liberal's blog last week.

"References like that do not help the debate,'' he said.

News of the comment comes just days after a senior member of the Liberal Ontario wing resigned for disparaging remarks about Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow.

Michael Klander, the party's Ontario executive vice-president, in his personal blog compared Chow, a Chinese-Canadian and an NDP candidate in Toronto, to a chow chow dog. The blog also referred to Layton as an "asshole.''

In an interview Wednesday, Emerson said he made the remark about Layton in a speech at a dinner during the B.C. federal Liberals' convention the weekend before the election call. He said it wasn't meant to be disrespectful.

"It was in reference to his constant chattering away with this great big grin on his face, pasted on, kind of an over-extended grin,'' Emerson said.

"It's a Cantonese expression which I use on myself and my wife uses on me all the time when I have to pose for pictures.''

"I was referring to constantly seeing Jack Layton looking like a boiled dog's head, talking about some of these shallow, ideologically driven policies of the NDP.''

Emerson said he learned the jibe from his Hong Kong-born wife, Theresa Yeuk-Si Tang.

"She's got tons of them,'' he said. "We certainly use it in our family and my wife says it's commonly used in the Cantonese community. It certainly wasn't meant as disrespectful.''

Emerson insisted it was in jest and said there are other choice Cantonese phrases he could apply to Layton, such as "frog in the well.'' It refers to someone who draws conclusions about the entire world based on a narrow perspective.

Layton's press secretary, Ian Capstick, said the remark was indicative of Liberal arrogance.

"It's disappointing when they cannot find fault in policy or in our activism or in the way we do our work on Parliament Hill, but instead decide to attack the personality traits of either the NDP here or others,'' Capstick said from Ottawa.

Emerson is fighting for re-election in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding after first winning it in 2004.

The former forest company CEO and senior provincial bureaucrat became the Liberals' B.C. political minister under Prime Minister Paul Martin, helping deliver billions of federal dollars to the province.

The Liberals have given him the lead role in the B.C. campaign, pitching him as the man who helped end years of federal neglect of the westernmost province.

The Elmhirst blog appears on the Liberals' B.C. campaign web site (www.teambc.ca) and was highlighted on Bourque Newswatch (bourque.org), which describes itself as the Canadian answer to the muckraking Drudge Report.

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 03:14 AM

---

But of course, you knew that, since you had it linked to your post. My apologies - I should have read more closely - you're looking for evidence that it is more unseemly than Erickson is intimating, and I don't have that.

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 03:19 AM

---

Of course it was an insult. Of course the NDP waxeth righteousness indignation. Who was it that said, "Madam, I'm drunk, but in the morning you will still be ugly"? Politics.

But when you don't offer the public policies and something for the media to talk about, then they go looking for something to fill the paper. A campaign of "Vote for me because my opponent is ugly" starts to look very tired. A campaign of "Vote for me because I am innocent and my opponent is ugly" is just pathetic.

Posted by: john at December 29, 2005 08:15 AM

---

These comments are not really part of the campaign. That's the funny thing. They were not intended as campaign statements but they have become them regardless.

This is the same problem that plagues the entire Internet: the sense that one can say anything, no matter how insulting or cruel (i.e. a flame), that one would normally never say in person.

The blogging thing has given it a pathetic twist. Blogging is popular and people want to jump onboard. As they strive to be cool, and funny, and shoot off the hip like they imagine blogging is all about, they end up saying some really stupid stuff.

These gaffes fit neatly into that age-old typically male tradition: showing off to impress your friends. Man oh man, does that ever bite us in the ass sometimes. ;)

Posted by: Ade at December 29, 2005 08:46 AM

---

Ya know, the recent spate of Liberal apparatchiks being purged for their rude blogging spurred me on to surfing the primary Liberal blogger sites (a distasteful task I undertook for purely scientific purposes)...they certainly stand in stark contrast to the blogs run by CPC MPs or cnadidates. The difference was like that of the tribal vulgarity and dogmatic linear chanting on the Liberal sites to pointed reasoning and personal responsibility and self respect noted on the CPC blogs....most prominent among them was Monte Solberg...Monte runs a class blog...I wish all political commentary could be so civil.

I suppose we can only be thankful Caroline Parrish was not PC literate enough to run a blog...I can imagine the venom and vulgarity it would contain.

Posted by: W.L.Mackenzie Redux at December 29, 2005 10:09 AM

---

Mackenzie, I'm quite certain that by now, an urgent missive has gone out from the Liberal Warm Dead Bodies Room to tell people to clean up their blogs. And I'm quite certain that they've all looked at what they've written and said "Nope, no problem here".

Posted by: Patrick at December 29, 2005 10:56 AM

---

I find these "Bloggings" (if that is the correct term) hilarious. Especially the ones about Chow-chow and boiled dog's head, which I take to mean a false, show-biz type smile. Incidentally, do the Chinese really boil and eat dog's heads? Ugh!
Lighten up folks and have a laugh. Take these remarks in the manner which they were intended.

Posted by: Gary Worton at December 29, 2005 11:00 AM

---

Certainly I suggested that we all take this lightly in my original post. But since then I've come to learn that there may be a cultural component to the insult that goes well beyond the physical description. I don't understand it completely, but it might be one of those things that I would laugh at but a Chinese person who understands the comment would cringe at.

If so, and Emerson knew that, maybe we should be taking this a bit more seriously.

Posted by: Angry in T.O. at December 29, 2005 11:03 AM

---