Debunking Smears against Poilievre
August 19, 2005 · By Peter Rempel
The left has apparently decided to engage in its own little smear campaigns in retribution for what it percieves to be a smear campaign against Madame Jean. Exhibit A: Rational Reasons, yet another in the seemingly and mercilessly unending stream of faceless Progressive Bloggers, has seen fit to call Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre a hypocrite over his criticism of Jean’s separatist past. Hypocritical because Poilievre was himself, according to RR, an Alberta separatist! A shocking revelation, to say the least. Check it out. Definitely an issue in which RR’s Liberal sanctimony is given the opportunity to come out in full force (Progressive Blogger sanctimony, that unfortunately ubiquitous characteristic of the Canadian Blogosphere).
Here’s the “story”: Working from an anonymous allegation from an internet message board, RR repeats the claim that:
“As a Young PC, I saw Pierre and his antics while he was a card-carrying member of the Alberta Separatist Party. I challenge Pierre to prove me otherwise. He knows its true.”
RR is relentless. He provides a link to the Separation Party of Canada that Poilievre was allegedly a card-carrying member of. And he’s written the Ottawa Citizen asking them to investigate the allegation. Anything to root out rampant hypocrisy among conservatives.
But there’s just one problem. The Separation Party of Alberta, which RR alleges Poilievre was a member of prior to being elected as an MP, is a relatively new party. In fact, it was only incorporated as a political party in May 2004. Hmmmmm. Which is interesting, because the federal election in which Poilievre won a seat in Ontario was held on June 28, 2004. If you follow RR’s logic you come to the conclusion that Poilievre took out a membership in the Separation Pary of Alberta either immediately before or during his campaign to win a federal seat in Ontario. And this is dependent upon Poilievre taking time out of his schedule in Ontario to fly back to Alberta and take out a membership the instant that memberships became available. Sound feasible? Not to me either.
Here’s the funny party: It took me about 45 seconds to determine that the allegations levelled against Poilievre by RR were nonsensical. Couldn’t he have done the same thing? Of course not, because he really was interested in smearing someone because a) he’s a Conservative, b) he once lived in Alberta, and c) he’s had the temerity to actually call into question the wisdom of appointing a separatist to the position of Governor General.
No Canadian, except a friend or loved one of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, has the right to comment on the fitness of Mme. Jean for Governor General office
Pierre Laporte, a democratically elected Quebec cabinet minister was strangled with the chain that held his own cross and then he was dumped in the trunk of a taxi cab.
Madam Jean’s friends/employee’s and drinking partners caused a lot of pain for a lot of people in my hometown of Montreal.
As I have posted here before all the windows on my block were blown out by one of hundreds of post box pipe bombs. Kids on my street were hit by flying glass. You never knew what was coming next. My Dad was depressed because he had moved us into that horrific scenario for his new job. My parents split up and I moved away. I never felt safe in Montreal after that.
They call the FLQ terrorists because they achieve what they want with terror. No difference from the 20 guys who killed 3000 on September 11, 2001 or who killed 52 in London on 7/7.
Promulgation of hate. That is what those folks are about. That is not what my country Canada is about.
Madam Jean is proud that her 6 year old is unilingual French. I have knocked myself out to make sure that my kids attend French Immersion as good Canadians.
Canada is a delicate experiment of acceptance and tolerance the likes of which the world has never seen before or may ever see again. We do not need a dabbler in hate in the role of head of state.
Can you imagine the family of a young soldier killed in defense of Canada receiving the military cross from this
woman who has a “committment” to Canada. Isn’t that the word that creepy guys use when they don’t want to marry the woman.
She is not the worst person in the world, but until the Queen tells me personally that she is okay by her, she is not Governor General material.
Good job Peter. I was too disgusted with “Rational” Mike to leave a comment on his blog. Even if it turned out to be true your have to question the character of someone who would spread a rumour like that based on some comment from some anonymous guy on some website.
Leftist bloggers don’t seem to grasp the importance of the issue. She’s going to be our head of state. Pierre is an opposition backbencher. Does anyone else see a difference here?
It’s not a smear, you dishonest jackass. The point of the post is not to claim that Poilievre is or was a member of the Alberta separtist movement. In fact, he quite clearly states it’s an unfounded allegation. The point of the post is that if unfounded allegations were enough for the right whingers to demand the GG answer the question of whether or not she was a separatist, then an unfounded allegation should be enough for him to demand that Poilievre answer the question of whether or not he’s a separatist.
And Rempel, the GG is a meaningless position in Canada. Poilievre is an Ontario MP. If he were an Alberta separatist it would have far more consequences than if the GG were one.
Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. As you know, all that matters in politics is that the accusation is made and that it get attention.
By “unfounded” Robert means, “on video toasting Quebec’s liberation and discussing Quebec’s ‘niggers’.” What does an allegation need for you to consider it legitimate, divine confirmation?
“Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. As you know, all that matters in politics is that the accusation is made and that it get attention.”
Come on, this accusation didn’t even make it out the door. RR couldn’t bother checking his facts. Yet another example of dishonest partisan blogging from dishonest Progressive Bloggers.
“Yet another example of dishonest partisan blogging from dishonest Progressive Bloggers.”
Oh come on, Peter. Progressive bloggers has a way cooler colour scheme than the blogging tories. :-P
“By “unfoundedâ€? Robert means, “on video toasting Quebec’s liberation”
I see your dishonesty knows no bounds. That video surfaced well after the initial accusations were made which renders your point worthless. The calls for the GG to clarify her position began with nothing more than an unfounded accusation, just like the one against Poilievre. So Mike has just as much reason to demand Pierre clarify his position as you right whingers initially did. And who knows where it will go from there. Perhaps some journalist will dig up a video of Pierre toasting Alberta separation with Hutton.
Western separatists haven’t garrotted anybody lately that I am aware of. There is a difference.
Using Peter’s “guilt by association” rationale, I give you the following:
Brian Mulroney is a criminal, involved with the Mafia.
As PM, he sang and revelled with Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan’s wife, Nancy, engaged in oral copulation with Frank Sinatra.
Frank and Sam Giancana were “like this”.
We can engage in Six Degrees of Seperation–PQ Style, all night, or we can posit for the moment that Mme. Jean’s true alliance is with the country who allowed her and her family to immigrate 37 years ago. We have no solid evidence to the contrary. Eveything else has been innuendo and rabble-rousing and jockeying for position.
“The unfounded allegation I used said he was a card carrying member of the Alberta Separation Party. I linked to the Separation Party of Alberta.”
So who is more misinformed here? You, who referred to the wrong party, or the anonymous dork who accused Pierre of belonging to a political party which has never existed?
Andy: In that case, someone should make a Godfather sequel with Jean Chretien cast in the lead role.
Anyone who knows me is aware that ‘The Godfather’ is my favourite flick of all time.
Bring it on, pappy!
This is an amusing exchange.. but I really must object to calling us “faceless” Progressive Bloggers. (Though I take the “unending stream” of us as a compliment.. we ARE an unending stream.. and we are growing rapidly).
How many of the Blogging Tories have posted their faces? ;)
Heck.. I posted my photo and even openly linked to it. I guess that makes me the public face of our site? :)
Though not quite quickly enough to catch up to the Blogging Tories, eh? Heh heh…
“And you know what the best irony is? When I acted like those attacking Mme Jean in my blog (by attacking Poilievre based on unfounded rumour and innuendo), you jumped to his defence acting just like me and others who defended Mme Jean – by demanding more substantial proof and by calling into question the motivations of those making the allegations.”
By the way: This is mo-ro-nic. I didn’t ask for more or better proof, I pointed out that the allegation is impossible. And I didn’t call into question your motivations, I pointed out that you apparently can’t check facts.
And still the video of Jean toasting Quebec’s liberation from Canada makes its rounds…
“So who is more misinformed here? You, who referred to the wrong party, or the anonymous dork who accused Pierre of belonging to a political party which has never existed?”
*Blink Blink*
Uhm, so I guess you’ve never seen the ‘Life of Brian’ eh? How bout you go out an rent it and see if you can finally get the joke. It’s not like the second half of that post didn’t indicate that.
“By the way: This is mo-ro-nic. I didn’t ask for more or better proof, I pointed out that the allegation is impossible. And I didn’t call into question your motivations, I pointed out that you apparently can’t check facts.
And still the video of Jean toasting Quebec’s liberation from Canada makes its rounds… ”
Peter, its called irony. This sorry affair with Jean started with nothing more than rumours, started by the separatists themselves (because they are threatened by her being GG). Long before the video came out. Back when the accusations against her were nothing more than rumours. And yet you and a bunch of other right wingers assumed she was guilty as charged and jumpmed up and down demanding she tell us how she voted. Yet when I find an equally unfounded spearatist rumour about a CPC MP (and as a bonus, one who is trying to make political hay from Jean as well) and imitate the moral outrage you guys had against Jean, you are all over me, in many cases repeating to me the very arguments I was slammed for while defending Jean.
The exact same situation – unfounded runmours of association with separatism and yet you pillory Jean because she was choosen by the Liberals and defend Poilievre because he’s one of yours. That’s a double standard and it reveals once and for all that this was a hamfisted partisan attack aimed at embarassing the Liberals. It is juevenille.
And since the 12-year-old video came out, Mme Jean and her husband have reiterated and reaffirmed quite unequivicolly their committment to Canada. That’s good enough for me. And Stephen Harper and most of the rest of the country.
The real separatists are absolutely terrified a confident, well spoken black Fracophone woman in such a visible federalist position. They want to discredit her because she is actually a very good choice. Their cause it threatened by her (and yes, I realize that it also political pandering to help the Liberal’s fortunes in Quebec. But this is the GG. Its a cerimonial position. And if you don’t think a Prime Minister Harper wouldn’t do the same damn thing, you are naiive. The CPC has less support than the Greens in Quebec for God’s sakes!). And you and your merry band of conservative rabble rousers are playing along and helping the separatist with their agenda – again.
How does it feel to be played by the separatists?
Being new to this discussion, I find that Mike and Robert are sanctimonious losers! Hopefully they know what a sanctimonious loser is and they don’t have to go rent a video to find out.
I find that Central Canadians (especially Ontarians) have no idea how Canadian federalism really operates, and are willing to let slide any dirty Liberal tricks as long as they will maintain the never ending gong show of the “two founding nations.” As far as Western Canadians are concerned, the “two founding nations” can go straight to hell! That is where they appear to be going anyway. For a Westerner, good government and friendship with other provinces is the only thing that matters about Canada—and rarely do we get both. Westerners don’t really care too much for the perpetual identity crisis of Central Canada. And for their part, Central Canadians remain so insular they cannot fathom how other parts of the country do not share the “two founding nations” mythology, nor be so unwilling to excuse stupid slapping contests between Central Canadian federalists and seperatists. Albertans in particular simply want their provincial government to fulfil the responsibilities that the constitution delegates to it, and for the federal government, over which Albertans have little influence, to butt out. Besides whenever the federal house is in disorder, the price of Central Canadian pandering between federalists and seperatists is always paid for by Westerners—whether by Western farmers or by the Western oil and gas interests. And the gong show of “two founding nations” isn’t cheap–as Adscam and the ensuing Gomery commission clearly show!
Given this view of how Canada operates, when it comes to Mme. Jean, I find her appointment and the ensuing controversy to be just one more stupid slapping contest between Central Canadian federalists and separatists. Did Mme. Jean at one time support Quebec independence? Probably. Is she now committed to Canada? Probably. This, and vice versa, can be said for a lot of public figures from Quebec. Playing both sides of the fence can be very advantageous you know! Just ask the real French in Europa.
The point here is that this type of appointment to the office of GG is bad for the rest of the country because it plays too much into the two founding nations gong show. The Governor General is not the head of state, he or she represents the head of the state. The Governor General is not just a ceremonial office, there are contitutionally judicious functions that a GG must fulfil, or be ready to fulfil. All regions rely on a sound appointment to the office of GG because all governments in the country are subordinate to the office, all lieutenant governors stem from it.
To appoint a Quebec celebrity to this role just because she is a Quebec celebrity who looks good for the Liberals; who clearly has not demonstrated any interest in either Western or Atlantic or Northern Canada; who has no record of parliamentary or military service; and who is now embroiled in petty controversy over her loyalties, is unacceptable. The only power a GG has is in the legitimate respect he or she commands in different political spheres across the country—not just Ontario and Quebec. To appoint someone so unqualified to “just a ceremonial office”, when it is not just a ceremonial office, is a scandal! Yet another demonstration of what little regard the Liberal Party of Canada has for the constitution of Canada (and its leaders for that matter). They have routinely demonstrated no interest in maintaining sound constitutional conventions to serve the Canada they claim to love well into the future.
And I didn’t need to run down to the local video store, nor take a crash course on variations of humour, to see the greater significance of the Mme. Jean controversy.
George Freeman you actually have a legitimate point.
To have reservations about Mme Jean because she is from Quebec vis a vis the rest of the country is a valid concern. It’s Mme Jean, its the fact that she is yet another GG from “Central Canada” as you put it, or Quebec. To want more regional diversity in the position of GG is a laudable goal. You are not launching a smear campaign against Mme Jean personally, you are voicing an honest concern about the selection process and balance. I would have no problems if that was what the main thrust of the opposition to Mme Jean was.
But it wasn’t. It was a separatist inspires smear job cum witch hunt meant to embarass and attack the Liberals and Paul Martin for political gain. That Mme Jean was dragged through the mud on this is of little concern to those people. It’s all about attacking the Liberals as often and as viciously as possible and to hell with principles, decorum and honesty.
And for what its worth, I’m a Dipper and have no love for Paul Martin or the Liberal. But I’m quite tired of these bush-league political tatics and I will fight for and defend anyone against it, on principle. This may sound odd coming from a lefty but I am quite impressed on how Stephen Harper conducted himself during this. He took the high road and now is satisfied with this. Too bad some of his cadres can;t follow his lead.
George Freeman you actually have a legitimate point.
To have reservations about Mme Jean because she is from Quebec vis a vis the rest of the country is a valid concern. It’s Mme Jean, its the fact that she is yet another GG from “Central Canada” as you put it, or Quebec. To want more regional diversity in the position of GG is a laudable goal. You are not launching a smear campaign against Mme Jean personally, you are voicing an honest concern about the selection process and balance. I would have no problems if that was what the main thrust of the opposition to Mme Jean was.
But it wasn’t. It was a separatist inspires smear job cum witch hunt meant to embarass and attack the Liberals and Paul Martin for political gain. That Mme Jean was dragged through the mud on this is of little concern to those people. It’s all about attacking the Liberals as often and as viciously as possible and to hell with principles, decorum and honesty.
And for what its worth, I’m a Dipper and have no love for Paul Martin or the Liberal. But I’m quite tired of these bush-league political tatics and I will fight for and defend anyone against it, on principle. This may sound odd coming from a lefty but I am quite impressed on how Stephen Harper conducted himself during this. He took the high road and now is satisfied with this. Too bad some of his cadres can’t follow his lead.
“But there’s just one problem. The Separation Party of Alberta, which RR alleges Poilievre was a member of prior to being elected as an MP, is a relatively new party. In fact, it was only incorporated as a political party in May 2004″
Actually, the post refers to the “Alberta Separatist Party” not the Separation Party of Alberta.
Western separatist parties have been around since the Western Canada Concept founded in the early 1980′s under Doug Christie.
According Wikipedia, the Alberta Independence Party was founded in January 2001 and founding was attended by Ted Morton. Ted Morton is a professor at the University of Calgary. Poilievre attended the U of C between 2000 and 2002.
The Alberta Independence Party never gained party status due to lack of membership. However, it did sell memberships. Was Poilievre a member? People would like to know.
Stop throwing Liberal sand in our eyes and look at the issues at hand.
Michaelle Jean was sympathetic to Quebec independence in her youth.
She got a plush job at CBC Quebec which is a hotbed of sovereignty.
Lafond is an FLQ Communist Frenchman who is a sympathizer – supporter of Quebec secession from Canada.
Meanwhile Jean and Lafond will be residing in Rideau Hall telling eveybody how they love Canada while they are served upon hand and foot … organizing diplomatic banquets … they being served by a private chef gnoshing on the finest of delicacies while sipping champagne and ice wine daily at our expense while they ROTFLTFAO … !!
And proud supportive Canadians will be munching on Big Macs for supper (obtained in the drive through) … while Martin and Co. are extracting massive tax surpluses “that are really not there” according to Martin ….
Has reality become to difficult to recognize in our ratshit little country ?!
So stop all this ridiculous propaganda and get real … eh .. ??!!!
Did Pierre Poilievre attend this meeting.
http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/temp.....dep_010121
Yes or no. An answer please.
I think we should ask RR, it this is true, provide us with some time and dates, some hard facts. Don’t just blah blah your lefty crap, if it’s true back it up, otherwise go away.
[...] you Peter Rempel for helping me out and proving the point I was trying to make in my previous blog article.In case [...]