Another firestorm for Harper to put out

[JaysFan]

Friends of former Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor???

Needless to say, it appears the Conservatives were doing business with a company that has some deep rooted racist tendencies to it.

Ottawa complains about supplier's offensive website

Updated Sun. Sep. 21 2008 6:31 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Advisory: Story contains offensive language

A company that supplies knives, flashlights and other equipment to the Canadian armed forces referred to Muslims as "rag-headed, heathen bastards" on its website as recently as Sunday when the federal government complained.

Gear Up Motors' website was replete with other jabs at women and Liberals and mocked official bilingualism and concerns about global warming.

But with Canadian troops risking their lives in Afghanistan, the passage about Muslims was the most likely to raise alarm.

"Jihad? I'll give you a jihad you miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastard!" said a caption posted over a photograph of a rifle-toting John Wayne.

Liberal MP Scott Brison said such prejudiced and "xenophobic" comments are contrary to the values Canadian soldiers are trying to promote abroad and potentially injurious to troops in Afghanistan, where the vast majority of the population is Islamic.

"This type of disgusting vitriol from a Canadian military supplier is certainly not going to help our brave Canadian men and women in uniform in places like Afghanistan and has a real potential to endanger them," he said in an interview.

The federal government was unaware of the website until The Canadian Press drew it to the attention of the Prime Minister's Office late Saturday. By mid-day Sunday, much of the offending material, including the John Wayne photo and caption, had been removed from the company's web site after the company had been contacted by the Prime Minister's Office.

Gear Up's home page still prominently asserted: "We are a proud supplier to the Canadian Armed Forces" for which it supplies "edged weapons, hand-held lighting and NVG filters for a variety of applications." And it still urged browsers to "Support our troops worldwide."

But the website had ceased to display the Candian Armed Forces' coat of arms.

Repeated attempts to contact company owner Stanley Pioro were unsuccessful.

After reviewing federal contracts, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday there's little the government can do because Gear Up is a private company, has fulfilled its contractual obligations and is not doing any ongoing business with the military.

"We have sent a request to them to remove any logos or copyrighted material from the Canadian Armed Forces from their website," said Kory Teneycke, Harper's communications director.

"We're doing what we can to distance ourselves from this company . . . We're obviously not pleased that they would characterize Canadian soldiers or our mission in that way."

Teneycke said he understands that the offending material was posted on the company's website only 10 days ago, long after the contracts with the federal government had expired. Nevertheless, he called the slur against Muslims "completely inappropriate."

"I think the chances that this company will be doing business with the military in the future would be very much in question as a result of this," he predicted.

He doubted that members of the military, which includes people of all faiths, including Muslims, would approve of Gear Up's messaging.

"Our soldiers are there to help the people of Afghanistan and are doing a heck of a job. They're not over there risking their lives because they hold the Afghan people or their faith in low esteem."

The company has been in the news recently after Green Leader Elizabeth May complained that Gear Up Motors was given a contract two years ago to supply army-issue knives, replacing longtime supplier, Grohmann Knives, located in Defence Minister Peter MacKay's Central Nova riding.

May is running against MacKay.

MacKay has said that Gear Up Motors won a competitive bid for the knife contract, offering a comparable product for a lower price. He has defended the bidding process and criticized May for appearing to suggest he should "rig the procurement process in favour of a local contractor."

Gear Up Motors, based in Richmond, Ont. just outside Ottawa, sells all terrain vehicles, dirt bikes and consignment hunting rifles, in addition to military equipment. It is located in former defence minister Gordon O'Connor's riding and appears to have won its first contract in 2006, when O'Connor was still in the post.

Until Sunday, jokes and sarcastic broadsides were sprinkled throughout the website amid pictures of the vehicles the company sells.

"Gear Up Motors is proud to be a fluently bilingual organization. We speak English and American," the company declared at one point.

A disclaimer that was obviously intended to be humourous included: "Not tested on animals - we use Liberals."

Source

[Bryan]

A company that makes things that are designed to be used in battle who have a dark sense of humor.

Sorry, this is news why?

[CANADIEN]

A company that makes things that are designed to be used in battle who have a dark sense of humor.

Sorry, this is news why?

Nice to see there are some who find racism to be a joke.

That being said, unless there were some irregularities, if they got the contract, they got the contract.

[kengs333]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

How much more of this are the Cons going to be able to take before they implode????

Edited September 22, 2008 by kengs333

[DrGreenthumb]

A company that makes things that are designed to be used in battle who have a dark sense of humor.

Sorry, this is news why?

Dark humour? So evrytime one of these conservative types shows their true colors and gets caught making racist or mysogenistic slurs we are all supposed to believe it was just their lame attempt at a joke?? If they think these kinds of things are funny it just goes to show that they are out of touch with Canadian values. They really just make me sick.

[g_bambino]

So evrytime one of these conservative types shows their true colors and gets caught making racist or mysogenistic slurs we are all supposed to believe it was just their lame attempt at a joke?? If they think these kinds of things are funny it just goes to show that they are out of touch with Canadian values. They really just make me sick.

I hope your revulsion is equally directed to any liberal type who gets caught making racist of mysogenistic slurs.

[cybercoma]

This could have just as easily been turned around as a slight against The Liberals for putting soldiers in Afghanistan with this supplier providing them with equipment; however, I don't think this affects any party negatively. The comments made on the website are disgusting and have no place being associated with our soldiers, but how is the governing party responsible? I can't imagine the Conservatives, or any other party were they governing, wasting taxpayers dollars by keeping tabs on these companies' websites looking for offensive material. The problem was brought up and it should be handled accordingly. Now, if it's handled poorly from this point forward, I would question the Conservatives, but to do so at this point is clearly ridiculous.

[cybercoma]

Dark humour? So evrytime one of these conservative types shows their true colors and gets caught making racist or mysogenistic slurs we are all supposed to believe it was just their lame attempt at a joke?? If they think these kinds of things are funny it just goes to show that they are out of touch with Canadian values. They really just make me sick.

What you're saying is a stereotype by innuendo. You're trying to label all conservatives (and indirectly all Conservatives) as having the view of some bigoted webmaster, which obviously is unfair and quite simply not the case. Considering most people who read this forum don't know the difference between a conservative and a Conservative, it is particularly important to point out what you're doing. Were Charles Anthony so inclined, I think it would be completely acceptable to ban you for such nonsense.

Edited September 22, 2008 by cybercoma

[capricorn]

I can't imagine the Conservatives, or any other party were they governing, wasting taxpayers dollars by keeping tabs on these companies' websites looking for offensive material.

Those keeping tabs on companies' and other websites are probably already doing so from federal offices on government time without the knowledge of their superiors expressly to dig up negative stuff. So in that respect it is costing the taxpayer.

Remember, the Ritz comments made in a private meeting became public after one of the attendees sent the information to the press. It's quite obvious that federal employee did not feel any loyalty toward the Minister and broke confidentiality, which is usually expected from bureaucrats, especially at the higher levels of management. The other matter is that depending on the sensitivity and security classification of the information being discussed, the more likely the public servant took an oath of secrecy. If it was ever proven that the oath of secrecy was broken, that employee could be fired for cause.

[DrGreenthumb]

Those keeping tabs on companies' and other websites are probably already doing so from federal offices on government time without the knowledge of their superiors expressly to dig up negative stuff. So in that respect it is costing the taxpayer.

Remember, the Ritz comments made in a private meeting became public after one of the attendees sent the information to the press. It's quite obvious that federal employee did not feel any loyalty toward the Minister and broke confidentiality, which is usually expected from bureaucrats, especially at the higher levels of management. The other matter is that depending on the sensitivity and security classification of the information being discussed, the more likely the public servant took an oath of secrecy. If it was ever proven that the oath of secrecy was broken, that employee could be fired for cause.

seems like you think it was more reprehensible that someone informed the public, than the fact that the minister made such ignorant comments? Typical conservative mindset as well, hold everyone but themselves accountable for everything.

[cybercoma]

Those keeping tabs on companies' and other websites are probably already doing so from federal offices on government time without the knowledge of their superiors expressly to dig up negative stuff. So in that respect it is costing the taxpayer.

Remember, the Ritz comments made in a private meeting became public after one of the attendees sent the information to the press. It's quite obvious that federal employee did not feel any loyalty toward the Minister and broke confidentiality, which is usually expected from bureaucrats, especially at the higher levels of management. The other matter is that depending on the sensitivity and security classification of the information being discussed, the more likely the public servant took an oath of secrecy. If it was ever proven that the oath of secrecy was broken, that employee could be fired for cause.

On the other hand, I'm grateful this information came to the surface because I feel the constituents need to be aware of such comments. However, I don't feel those comments should be used to broad brush an entire party, or worse yet all the people who support that party, as well.

[Riverwind]

On the other hand, I'm grateful this information came to the surface because I feel the constituents need to be aware of such comments.

I disagree. Civil servants are entitled to whistle blower protection if they are reporting something that illegal or a risk to public safety. They deserve no such protection if they engage in partisan political activities. If the leaker is allowed to go unpunished it will undermine the ability of any government to communicate effectively with the bureaucrats because ministers will no longer feel they can speak freely with the bureaucrats. Edited September 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[Bryan]

Dark humour? So evrytime one of these conservative types shows their true colors and gets caught making racist or mysogenistic slurs we are all supposed to believe it was just their lame attempt at a joke?? If they think these kinds of things are funny it just goes to show that they are out of touch with Canadian values. They really just make me sick.

Everyone has a different idea of what's funny. Don't like what the webmaster for Gear Up Motors thinks is funny? Don't buy their ATVs.

[CANADIEN]

Confidentiality and secrecy exist to protect sensitive information. Stupid "jokes" like "please tell me the person who died is a political opponent" are NOT information. So the Minister might not trust his bureaucrats in the future? If I were a bureaucrat, I would not trust that the Minister will take seriously issues I bring to the table.

[betsy]

Friends of former Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor???

Needless to say, it appears the Conservatives were doing business with a company that has some deep rooted racist tendencies to it.

Source

"Jihad? I'll give you a jihad you miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastard!" said a caption posted over a photograph of a rifle-toting John Wayne."

Is this what's causing the outrage?

Well first of all, it's a caricature depicting a rifle-toting John Wayne. So it's meant to poke fun.

Second, the way I take it John Wayne was referring to the enemy when he pointed out to JIHAD. Aren't suicide bombers and the Taliban doing their jihad against our troops? John Wayne called the enemies some colorful names. So? What's unusual about that?

The caricature is meant to make fun at the expense of the enemies. What's wrong with that?

Edited September 22, 2008 by betsy

[betsy]

What I'm outraged about is the way the enemies are readily defended from getting insulted.

At least that's how I see it if people will make a big issue out of this. That this would even become an issue is pathetic.

This company is an arms dealer, for crying out loud! He is fitting our own soldiers in this war!

So this company is showing its support for the troops - rooting for the troops, giving dark humor in an indeed dark times for our troops!

This company should not be shamed into bowing down....in fact shame should be cast the other way around!

Freedom is what it's all about! This company is expressing its own message! I see nothing wrong in insulting and hurling curses at the enemies in war. I see nothing wrong in wishing all the ills on the enemies in times of war.

For some folks, they feel it's being one with our troops since they can't be there physically to do battle alongside them.

I'm all for our troops!

Edited September 22, 2008 by betsy

[betsy]

At least this company who's fitting our troops is openly vocal to where it stands....I can assume chances are, this is one arms dealer who would not be dealing with the Taliban. I'm glad they got the contract!

The company should come out with aggressive press releases and defend its right to express its freedom and support for our troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. I say turn the tables on those who readily come to the defense of the enemies, those who quell our freedom to express ourselves with accusations of "racism" and "bigotry" for just about anything. Insulting someone who's sworn to die killing you is one of the most natural expression. In this case, the clear reference to "JIHAD" clearly says John Wayne was talking to jihadists!

If the company handles this well, this could be good for Harper - who had always consistently shown his firm support to our troops!

Edited September 22, 2008 by betsy

[Wild Bill]

At least this company who's fitting our troops is openly vocal to where it stands....I can assume chances are, this is one arms dealer who would not be dealing with the Taliban. I'm glad they got the contract!

The company should come out with aggressive press releases and defend its right to express its freedom and support for our troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. I say turn the tables on those who readily come to the defense of the enemies, those who quell our freedom to express ourselves with accusations of "racism" and "bigotry" for just about anything. Insulting someone who's sworn to die killing you is one of the most natural expression. In this case, the clear reference to "JIHAD" clearly says John Wayne was talking to jihadists!

If the company handles this well, this could be good for Harper - who had always consistently shown his firm support to our troops!

I think some "pacifists" would be quite surprised at how many companies have similar statements postered on their walls. It's always an illogical conceit to assume that your own values are universal or even just mainstream.

Anyone so politically correct as to defend the Taliban deserves the fate of Daniel Pearl.

[CANADIEN]

At least this company who's fitting our troops is openly vocal to where it stands....I can assume chances are, this is one arms dealer who would not be dealing with the Taliban. I'm glad they got the contract!

The company should come out with aggressive press releases and defend its right to express its freedom and support for our troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan. I say turn the tables on those who readily come to the defense of the enemies, those who quell our freedom to express ourselves with accusations of "racism" and "bigotry" for just about anything. Insulting someone who's sworn to die killing you is one of the most natural expression. In this case, the clear reference to "JIHAD" clearly says John Wayne was talking to jihadists!

If the company handles this well, this could be good for Harper - who had always consistently shown his firm support to our troops!

Less we forget... saying that racists and bigots are racists and bigots is quelling their freedom of expression. And it is coming to the defense of the ennemy.

Here's one guy who thinks that our troops are fighting a good fight in Afghanistan and who finds it insulting that the measure of our support to our troops is how loud we applaud garbage.

Edited September 22, 2008 by CANADIEN

[wolfd]

This could have just as easily been turned around as a slight against The Liberals for putting soldiers in Afghanistan with this supplier providing them with equipment; however, I don't think this affects any party negatively. The comments made on the website are disgusting and have no place being associated with our soldiers, but how is the governing party responsible? I can't imagine the Conservatives, or any other party were they governing, wasting taxpayers dollars by keeping tabs on these companies' websites looking for offensive material. The problem was brought up and it should be handled accordingly. Now, if it's handled poorly from this point forward, I would question the Conservatives, but to do so at this point is clearly ridiculous.

Agreed. The gov't. is buying product from these people..... not subscribing to their morality.

[cybercoma]

I disagree. Civil servants are entitled to whistle blower protection if they are reporting something that illegal or a risk to public safety. They deserve no such protection if they engage in partisan political activities. If the leaker is allowed to go unpunished it will undermine the ability of any government to communicate effectively with the bureaucrats because ministers will no longer feel they can speak freely with the bureaucrats.

Should ministers be able to speak freely if that means they're going to make derogatory or defamatory comments?

[cybercoma]

"Jihad? I'll give you a jihad you miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastard!" said a caption posted over a photograph of a rifle-toting John Wayne."

Is this what's causing the outrage?

Well first of all, it's a caricature depicting a rifle-toting John Wayne. So it's meant to poke fun.

Second, the way I take it John Wayne was referring to the enemy when he pointed out to JIHAD. Aren't suicide bombers and the Taliban doing their jihad against our troops? John Wayne called the enemies some colorful names. So? What's unusual about that?

The caricature is meant to make fun at the expense of the enemies. What's wrong with that?

There are a lot of people in this world who wear head-scarves that stand against terrorism and this so-called jihad, that's why it's inappropriate. The word "rag-head" is insulting, not only to the ones who deserves no respect, but to every one of which that is part of his or her culture.

[cybercoma]

Anyone so politically correct as to defend the Taliban deserves the fate of Daniel Pearl.

Who is defending The Taliban?

[CANADIEN]

There are a lot of people in this world who wear head-scarves that stand against terrorism and this so-called jihad, that's why it's inappropriate. The word "rag-head" is insulting, not only to the ones who deserves no respect, but to every one of which that is part of his or her culture.

And I find it to be garbage because it reduces the war to nothing more than a "kill the Taliban" joyride.

Edited September 22, 2008 by CANADIEN

[peter_puck]

Friends of former Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor???

Needless to say, it appears the Conservatives were doing business with a company that has some deep rooted racist tendencies to it.

Source

I don't see how this is a firestorm at all. Harper did not know about, once he found out he did what he could. He is not reponsible for the actions of every civil servent, much less everyone who has had a contract with the federal government.

It may be a small story, but it is not a political one.