08.09.2011 12:52 PM

Is Hudak MPP Toby Barrett a racist?

You decide.

Story here. (And, personally, I don’t see it simply as smearing First Nations here in Canada; I also see it as smearing blacks in the U.K.)

The posting, which I’d referred to earlier, is this:

18 Comments

  1. Ryan says:

    Maybe they’ll send Rocco out to try to spin this one? That guy’s everywhere! 🙂

  2. WildGuesser says:

    An appeasement reaponse to lawbreaking, whether its illegal blockades or rioting by persons of any or no common race or creed leads only to more of the same. Swift justice is the only answer that garners the proper fear and respect. Otherwise, there no discentive to dissuade 200 people from blockading the DVP tomorrow for self-judged wrongs and preventing ambulances from getting to hospitals by the most direct route.

    Fortunately, Canadians are increasingly supporting law and order politicians rather than with those that espouse the criminal apologist like of thinking.

    Hopefully the LPC will start reflecting mainstream Canadian values before too long and lawfulness is not brought out as some kind of twisted wedge issue for political strategy.

    • Attack! says:

      Gee, if Canadians are so against this “appeasement” you and Barrett are alluding to, then why did they elect Julian Fantino, the OPP Commissioner who oversaw and maybe even devised that policy*… twice, in succession?

      (and hopefully, some day, you’ll understand the difference between the LPC and what WK does here, sometimes on behalf of, um, the Liberal Party of Ontario)

      * acc. to Blatchford, he and his predecessor, “either subjugated themselves to government will, held their tongues or respectively dreamed up the disastrous operational plan for Caledonia and then stubbornly held onto it for dear life.”

      http://conservativesagainstfantino.wordpress.com/

      • Philip says:

        Well, the obvious answer is that the “appeasement response to lawbreaking” is perfectly acceptable to Wild Guesser as long as it is the Conservative MP/junior Cabinet Minister from Vaughn. Some might call it rank hypocrisy. I do. Isn’t it amusing to see Conservatives lather themselves into a righteous law and order frenzy, while desperately trying to sweep under the rug exactly how Julian Fantino mishandled Caledonia.

    • Jon Adams says:

      “Fear and respect?”

  3. JenS says:

    Just had it out w/ a woman on Twitter, who seemed to be arguing out of both sides of her mouth that a) it wasn’t a reference to Naziism, and b) it was, but it was a perfectly apt allusion. What the LPO needs is more people like her and Barrett to let people know the sentiment within Hudak’s ranks.

  4. smelter rat says:

    Gordon, is that you?

  5. Wonder what happened to the law “to shoot looters on sight”. Enough is enough already.

    • Philip says:

      I just love internet tough guys and/or gals. If you are such a hard ass, why don’t you go over to London and start dispensing your brave little brand of long gun justice. Take Toby and his cowboy hat with you. I figure between the two of you stone cold killers you could restore order pretty quickly. Or you could sit behind the safety of your keyboard furiously typing your sad little power fantasies for us all to see.

      It is interesting to see people, who probably have no idea of exactly what damage rifle calibre rounds do to a human body, call for the shooting of other human beings. I’m sure it helps that they would never be put in a position to actually pull the trigger themselves.

  6. Mark Boscariol says:

    Is it now unacceptable to use the term “appeasement”? What are the conditions making the term unacceptable as I know it is not in itself? Is the user make it bad or the subject? can you use it if you’re not a tory? or is it aboriginals being the subject what makes it comparable to naziism? Maybe a combination of both? Can a liberal talk about appeasing a tory, or does that make them a nazi? I really need to clarify in my political correctness manual cause this one has me stumped.
    Not a card carrying member of any party so no real bias other than against political correctness when it curtails freedom of speech

    • Attack! says:

      Come on: you don’t have to be a “card-carrying member” of a political party to be carrying water for them.

      And if you were really interested in the connotations of the term — and were genuinely unaware that it’s almost universally used as a pejorative term of the highest order, on the flip side of ‘Godwin’s Law’ — you might’ve at least tried consulting Wikipedia, e.g., as a start, before tacitly scolding WK here for being so PC (the same term the very conservative MPP in q. invokes, by no small coincidence) in making that link:

      “The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939… [and] has been used as a synonym for weakness and even cowardice since the 1930s, and it is still used in that sense today as a justification for firm, often armed, action” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*