“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

Corruption and Maclean’s

Martin Patriquin is one of the biggest scumbags in Canadian journalism. This week, we’re going to be hearing all about Patriquin, because he has written Maclean’s cover story, which looks like this:

If that seems familiar to you, that’s because it is.  Here’s another Maclean’s cover story, also written by Patriquin:

So, not only is he scumbag, he’s not very original.  He’s also a phony, turns out.

Here’s what Patriquin wrote in the National Post on January 5, 2007: “Sorry, I’m not going to blog. Life, any life, is just far too mundane a spectacle. With any luck, the journalist blog trend will follow the faux-hawk into the giant dumpster of bad ideas and everyone, journalists included, will figure out the advantage of knowing when to shut up.”

Uh-huh. You guessed it: here’s Patriquin’s blog, in Maclean’s. You know, the one he said he’d never do, because it’s a “bad idea.”

My personal experience with Patriquin is not dissimilar.  He reprints Conservative Party talking points, is regarded as a cynical no-talent by his more-accomplished colleagues, and sends over-refreshed emails to people in the middle of the night.  He thinks he’s clever, but he isn’t.  He’s a loser.

So how is it that he’s employed at Maclean’s? Beats me.  But the magazine also retains the services of Mark Steyn, so that might have something to do with it.  Steyn, as you know, is a former disc jockey who calls the Chinese “chinks” and “gooks,” the Japanese “japs;”  Indians “wogs;” natives “Injuns;” Muslims “monkeys” and rapists, and so on. He also suggests the disabled more or less got what they deserved in 9/11. Birds of a feather publish together, I guess.

Anyway.  As Norman Spector has pointed out, Patriquin’s “story” declines to provide the reader with a study – any study – that proves that Quebec is “the most corrupt province in Canada.”

They won’t, either, because no such study exists.  Patriquin just made it up, and someone at the magazine went along with it because they thought they’d dazzle a few more dentist waiting rooms with their wit. Personally, I hope every person in Canadian public life – and every person – kicks the living shit of Matrin Patriquin and his magazine this week.  They richly deserve it.

Oh, and corruption?  Corruption is defined as “a lack of honesty or integrity.”

By that definition, the rest of us know who is really corrupt, don’t we, Martin?

40 Responses to “Corruption and Maclean’s

  1. Will M. says:

    I think he’s actually done Charest a big favor.

    He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard!

    Maclean’s has just united Quebec against the ROC.

  2. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I guess I won’t be getting a subscription after all. I found it fishy when it first came out — especially when you’re reduced to harping (oops) back all the way to Maurice Le Noblet (what, no Louis-Alexandre Taschereau???) to make your point.

    Nothing quite like bellow journalism. (No wonder the Conservatives are held in high esteem in a few quarters.) So much for that read.

    I hear some people can’t even get the University rankings right. Onward and hopefully upward, I suppose…

  3. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    And another thing, I can think of a few litigious people and organizations…should be fun watching the Carnaval de Quebec swing into action. Can you say big cash injection? Let the party begin! (Personally, I hope Connie can make it down to La Vieille Capitale. Always wanted to meet that guy.)

  4. smelter rat says:

    [transplanted from dupl. thread, at September 26, 2010 at 8:41 pm]

    My parents subscribed to Macleans in the 60′s, I became one when it was revived in the late 70′s, and quit it quite some time ago as it was redundant in the age of electronic news/information media. Since then it seems to have devolved into some sort of rag devoted to the best of yellow journalism. Good luck to them with that.

  5. Peter Jay says:

    So… you never mentioned Andrew Coyne’s contributing article? Care to comment on that?

    Especially the last paragraph — http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/24/what-lies-beneath-quebecs-scandals

  6. Granny says:

    Reminds me of why we dropped our subscription to Maclean’s four or five years ago. Besides the fact that it had turned into a boring “People” wannabe.

  7. Leon says:

    I doubt Pauline Marois could be happier. As a Quebecker, I can tell you, it is that kind of bullshit that turns us Quebec Federalists into Quebec Nationalists real quick.
    English Canada needs to realize something, Canada needs Quebec more then Quebec needs Canada.

  8. Richard says:

    And just to make things “fair and balanced”, we should include this story about “The Secret Shame of Macleans”: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/23/the-secret-shame-of-macleans/

  9. parnel says:

    So, are you suggesting Quebec is not corrupt at all and the article is totally wrong or just senationalist. Andrew Coyne was not much kinder in his column.

  10. V. Malaise says:

    I read a book a few years ago called “Money Laundering 101,” by a former RCMP fraud investigator. I just cannot remember his name.

    I remember him very clearly pointing a professional finger at Quebec. He compared the level of corruption to that of Mexico.

    I think anyone in the pavement business could give you chapter and verse on the subject.

  11. Mark Morabito says:

    Leon Quebec exists economically because of equalization payments. Even Lucien Bouchard thinks the situation is so bad that Quebec’s dependence on equalization payments makes independence an impossibility. From a purely economic standpoint, Canada would be far better off without Quebec.

    • Leon says:

      I disagree. Quebec could survive and prosper without english Canada. The question that should be asked, can Canada survive without Quebec? I doubt it.

  12. Loraine Lamontagne says:

    Maclean’s claims that “Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada”.

    How did they measure that?

    For Maclean?s journalists to arrive at that conclusion I have to assume that they looked into what?s happening in other provinces. Yet, I see no evidence of this.

    Are lawyers from, say, an Alberta law firm that has made a legal donation to the PCPofA barred from judicial appointments? Are firms in Alberta forbidden from competing for a government contract if they, or a member of their staff or their staff family, have made a legal donation from the PCPofA?

    Maclean’s is dealing, it seems, with perception, not facts. They should back up their claim. In the case of corruption, seems to me that what is perceived as corruption by Pierre may not be by Peter.

  13. jay says:

    Talk about tabbing it up–watch out Sun News.

  14. Ghoris says:

    I agree that this headline is unfair and sensationalist, but on the other hand, I do find it quite illuminating that the day it hit the newsstands, the government trotted out Deputy Premier Nathalie Normandeau to issue the standard ‘we-are-humiliated’ attack. Premier Charest was, of course, unavailable because he was otherwise occupied: being cross-examined at a judicial inquiry into influence peddling and cronyism in the appointment of judges.

    Just sayin’.

  15. Guest says:

    Not sure it’s as bad as Maclean’s killing off the Finns several times over:


    • Namesake says:

      Wow, that’s quite a Wall of Defame showcased in that piece.

      Who knew? Clearly, I don’t go to the dentist’s office often enough; I missed all that Pukitzer-grade material.

      Bravo Maclean’s: who needs an Ezracable Libelant when you’ve got a Markensteyn.

    • Philip says:

      Absolutely brilliant! Macleans has become an absurdly hysterical neo-con party organ of late. Completely unreadable.

  16. Cam says:

    I stopped reading Maclean’s a long time ago.

  17. Hunter Mars says:

    Heavens to Betsy ! I would have guessed that Alberta had the most corrupt government (?) in Canada .
    They are ruthlessly stupid and brain addled .Same GD party has ruled the province for fourty years in different guises .
    Squandering massive amounts of jack is their hobby .Propping up big oil is their past time .
    Slashing payments for welfare and housing .
    They ridicule the weak and vulnerable .
    Nice bunch of people .

  18. S. Peterson says:

    Imagine my surprise o find that Macleans got $2,600,000 from the federal government through the Canadian Periodical Fund last year. I guess they repay by flogging the conservative line. But what really amazes me is Andrew Coyne’s devotion to pure free enterprise. Is blatant hypocracy corruption? Well, yes it is.

  19. Warren says:

    Exactly. When I was in BC, Glen Clark’s government bequeathed us Bingo-gate, Hydro-gate and a slew of other scandals, fiscal and otherwise. It was extraordinary.

    Will Maclean’s go after BC, too?

  20. Jon Pertwee says:

    And with that comment. Observant illustrated to all that the tinfoil and blue kool aid was causing him to lose grip on reality.

  21. Namesake says:

    Geez, why don’t you blame “the ethnic vote” while you’re at it, sore loser?

    Here’s a hint: want the CPC to get more votes in QC to get its coveted majority? Don’t demonize the BQ voters as being “corrupt” for doing exactly what the Reform Coalitionists have been for 20 years: trying to advance their regional interests.

    And don’t condemn those who may have held their noses while voting Liberal again as also being corrupt, since chances are, they simply — and quite rightly — did not trust that your Party would do what was best for the whole country, either, because they remembered its extremist elements, and feared it would play to its baser instincts, and suspected it would do more to protect the interests of foreign corporations and the very wealthy than it would to protect the health and welfare of Canadians.

  22. WJM says:

    For that matter, will Canada’s National Newesmagazine ever kick the tires down in Dannystan?

  23. Namesake says:

    yeah, BC was the scandal of the month club, there, in the 90s:

    let’s not forget ‘Porch-Gate’ (when Premier Clark got a free deck put on his home by a contractor he seemed to be doing a favour for); or,

    the former Premier Bill Van Der Zalm (the So-Cred cat’s who’s come back to hiss at the HST), whose questionable “Fantasy Gardens” development deal went down in flames (and whenever I see him on TV now, I chuckle & remember the bitter words of Faye Leung, the realtor caught in the middle who’d had the forethought to record their conversation: “I fix you.”)

  24. Jan says:

    Now we have questions around the sale of B.C. Rail. It’s been years now and the justice system seems to be being gamed by the Campbell government. And all the drug money being laundered – hard to believe blind eyes aren’t being turned with the small number of prosecutions. So, to say that Quebec is the worst, based on a lack of information on other provincesm is just bad journalism.

  25. Namesake says:

    As you were, then, Tokyo Rose… carry on with your one-man-spam brigade on all the political blogs and media sites of the nation.

    Good, so, you with your keen political instincts can run the campaign in QC (‘Anyone who doesn’t vote for the CPC is a traitor, or corrupt, or both!’); Baird can win over urban voters (‘Elites! fools! cowards!’); Flaherty can steady the business community’s nerves (‘The economy will collapse if we don’t get a majority’); and Stevie Blunder can assure everyone he’s guarding the purse strings carefully (‘We’ve erected exactly 8,498 ‘The New Government of Canada is Gaming You’ Signs!).

  26. Namesake says:

    Drafting the Party’s next concession speeches then, are we? Better stick to “money and ethnic votes”; less…. windy.

  27. Namesake says:

    Afraid keeping it short’s not exactly your strong suit, Obwordent.

    And judging by your various screeds, meltdowns, & bridge-burning here over the past few days, the Wiki on that infamous broadcaster of war-time propaganda was right:

    we _can_ read between your lines, to see the effects of our actions on Your party’s disintegrating morale. “Con-Bots’ Bridge is Falling Down, Falling Down…”


  28. Lipman says:


    The Hibernol must have worn off. There must be a federal election looming….

  29. Dennis says:

    Observant, I haven’t suggested that Danny Williams strengthens the federation. Is this a race to the bottom?

  30. Leon says:

    With all due respect, the last time Canada had a majority Conservative government, a Quebec separatist party was elected to the House of Commons. Maybe I am wrong, but the Conservative party history of strenghtening Quebec separatists was not wise way to deal with Quebec separatists. I really don’t want the separatists getting stronger which is why, amongst many other reasons, I’ll vote Liberal in the next federal electon.

Leave a Reply