Thursday, February 02, 2012

In defended of Senator Boisvenu

I support Senator Boisvenu as do many other Quebecers.. Mario Dumont polled his audience a few days ago and 93% stood up for the Senator. A good piece by Martineau and Joanne Marcotte. The howling leftist elites of Quebec and otherfoul mouthed lefties should shut up.


Alain said...

I agree and think it is a shame that the senator was persuaded to retract his comments. I do wish people would stop giving in to the leftists.

Ted Betts said...

What the senator said was sickening. It's why right and left have condemned him and why he was so quick to apologize.

At some point, you are going to have to realized that being outraged over sick and disgusting comments does not always make you a leftie. Sometimes it just shows that you are a decent person.

maryT said...

What Pat Martin just said, as an angry old man, re why he made those remarks was much worse than what he said. He really made a lot of unkind remarks re the senator. This during a debate on the pension thing in HofC. No way did he apologize, just made it worse.
Funny he gets upset at the possible suicide by rope of criminals, but argues like a raving idiot for the right of women to kill their babies, via abortion for whatever reason. Especially if that baby is a girl.

Anonymous said...

I would imagine most people were upset with Mr Boisvenu's original statement, I would also imagine most people understood his passion, and, I would guess that most were happy that Mr Boisvenu retracted those comments. Now, I'd also guess most people thought Mr Martin's comments were out of line, but, I cant see Mr Martin retracting his comments. This is not a Left or Right issue, this is more about Pat Martin being a plain old goof....

maryT said...

Latest from Pat Martin.
F-bomb-dropping MP defends his verbal attack on Tory senator Boisvenu
Taber: Pat Martin wants to correct his breech of parliamentary protocol: “I should have called him an Honourable Asshole,” the NDP MP says now.

Ted Betts said...

Anonymous 4:36:

It's the benefit of lowered expectations I guess.

I remember quite a bit more outrage at different times over Pat Martin's various wordy indiscretions. We expect him to be a rude idiot now and he rarely fails to meet expectations.

There is also mixed into that a lack of ever having taken him seriously. Remember the puppet press conference?

So Boisvenu gets a different kind of focus than Martin also because (a) he is a serious and well-respected man, (b) he talked about the death of inmates, not just potty mouth, (c) the public doesn't know him and so you notice the first indiscretion more.

He did retract, though, which puts him on a different plain than Martin.

The host of this website and the first commenter, however, are different stories. Death doesn't need cheerleaders.

Patsplace said...

Hi Ted,
I guess the moral high ground has been taken by those that feel we should house, feed, educate and supply medical attention to those that have taken the lives of one or more people, without just cause.

I guess the key to this is "just cause". A policeman that shoots a dangerous individual is regarded as having just cause, the soldier is regarded as having just cause, and there by and large is no major argument to these circumstances. Is killing a murderer "just cause"?

This brings us to the "Death Penalty". That topic that is even more politically incorrect than aborting an 8 month old I mean fetus.

This has never been put to a vote because of the almost certain vote to reinstate the death penalty. A vote I might add that would be by the citizenry of the country and not by an appointed or self appointed elite.

An interesting situation this. A monster that only looks like a human is kept alive and treated well in some perverted sense of "doing the right thing". I've never really understood it.

As far as the rope statement, he was off-side saying that. Convicts should never be allowed rope, they'd use it as a weapon.

maryT said...

What would happen to the bleeding hearts if Corrections Canada followed the menu and fashions of that Sheriff in Arizona.

Ted Betts said...

Let's see.

Countries that legally kill their own citizens (in order of biggest killers to lowest): China, Iran, North Korea, Yemin, United States, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Syria.

A real fine bunch that you want to be associated with.

Countries that do not: Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Turkey, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, even Russia

Organizations that side with Canada: the Roman Catholic Church, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Evangelical Lutherans, Anglicans and Espicopalians, Methodists, most Jewish denominations, United Church, American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., Presbyterian Church.

Does that look like a list of "politically correct"?

I know which group I would prefer to be a part of.

The same polls that shows declining but still high support for capital punishment in Canada also show very high preference not to bother changing the laws.

maryT said...

What would you call aborted babies, that Cnadian women kill legally.

Patsplace said...

When I said that I never really understood it, I meant that. I'm not endorsing it, I'm just saying that I don't understand it.

Perhaps my background is different than many. I had a brother doing life and he was in prison when the final "you die if you do this" penalty was removed. The mess hall broke out in cheers and the talk in the yard was that everybody got bullets on the next job. Before that, only the really level headed ones got bullets because if you killed a Cop, you all died. Now that no one died, it was "let her smoke" time.

I too am familiar with who does and does not kill killers, some of whom kill for much less reason than others. It's a complicated affair and one that eventually gets brought back to "kill you die" state of being.

Long about then Sorcery is punishable by death (among other hideous crimes)and in the remote language of the Gylnnbl, Ted Betts translates as "spell caster". (Tongue removed from cheek)

Anonymous said...

Post your address.

I'll come over and you can tell me to shut up to my face Roy.

Anonymous said...

How is this different from so called progressives talking about euthanasia ?

Peter Stockland said...

TedBetts is absolutely right. Before anything else, a State exists for two fundamental and related purposes. 1) To keep its citizens from killing each other.
2) To restrain maximally its monopoly on the use of force by avoiding causing harm to its citizens.
Failed states such as Somalia can't fulfill obligation #1. Failed states such as Syria justify violating obligation #2 by dehumanizing those they wish to eliminate.
If an individual hands a loaded gun to someone intent on murder, that individual is at least morally culpable. If the State provides the means for any citizen to take his or her own life, it is equally morally culpable. Do we really want Canada to take on the moral characteristics of Somalia or Syria?

I Support Lord Black