Ekos Pollster Biased?

[normanchateau]

After his outrageous comments hit the news, even the CBC will have to distance themselves from this man - or will they?

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pollster-frank-graves-apologizes-denies-anti-tory-bias/article1544593/

From the link you provided, it appears that among Frank Graves' "outrageous comments" is his incendiary statement that the Conservative Party provides a haven for those with homophobic views.

This seems like a reasonably accurate statement. The leader of the Conservative Party has certainly engaged in behaviour remarkably consistent with homophobic attitudes. Harper not only voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals, but so did his entire CA caucus. C-250 passed because a majority of Liberal, NDP, Bloc and PC MPs voted for it. A political party which would select as its leader a man who voted against making it a hate crime to advocate the murder of homosexuals and lesbians should not be outraged or even surprised that the party is accused of being a haven for those with homophobic views.

[bloodyminded]

- and thus gives rise to no particularly desire to change governments on the part of the sane.

Less than one third of the voting public are "sane." Canada is in dire straits indeed.

[capricorn]

This seems like a reasonably accurate statement. The leader of the Conservative Party has certainly engaged in behaviour remarkably consistent with homophobic attitudes. Harper not only voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals, but so did his entire CA caucus.

IMO the rationale that hate crimes against the GLBT community were already covered under existing legislation had merit.

Maybe the next step should be to make it a hate crime to promote, advocate and commit murder of left handed individuals. They too are an identifiable group and have been known to be vilified.

There are many colloquial terms used to refer to a left-handed person, e.g. "southpaw" or "goofy". Some are just slang or jargon words, while other references may be offensive or demeaning, either in context or in origin (e.g. the British "cack-handed"). In more technical contexts, 'sinistral' may be used in place of 'left-handed' and 'sinistrality' in place of 'left-handedness'. Both of these technical terms derive from sinestra, a Latin word meaning 'left'.[6] Left hand shakes are a sign of disrespect – however the left hand shake is the standard in the international Scouting movement. In Hebrew, as well as in other ancient Semitic and Mesopotamian languages, the term "left" was a symbol of power or custody.[7] The left hand symbolized the power to shame society, and was used as a metaphor for misfortune, natural evil, or punishment from the gods. This metaphor survived ancient culture and was integrated into mainstream Christianity by early Catholic theologians as Ambrose of Milan[8] to modern Protestant theologians such as Karl Barth[9] to attribute natural evil to God in explaining God's omnipotence over the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness#Negative_associations_of_left-handedness_in_language

[normanchateau]

Maybe the next step should be to make it a hate crime to promote, advocate and commit murder of left handed individuals. They too are an identifiable group and have been known to be vilified.

Canadian legislation makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of members of a group identified by their skin colour, race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Stephen Harper has never objected to the first four. While he has no objections to hate crime legislation per se, he does object when it pertains to homosexuals and lesbians. No wonder the party that he leads is perceived as a haven for homophobes.

[Argus]

From the link you provided, it appears that among Frank Graves' "outrageous comments" is his incendiary statement that the Conservative Party provides a haven for those with homophobic views.

This seems like a reasonably accurate statement. The leader of the Conservative Party has certainly engaged in behaviour remarkably consistent with homophobic attitudes.

What constitutes homophobia? The yardsticks keep getting shifted. It used to be if you hated gays and called them fags and wanted to beat them up and wouldn't ever consider hiring one that was homphobia. Now, to some, if you have the slightest hesitation in supporting every item of "equality" on the gay manifesto you might as well be lurking in parks to beat up fags. No difference between you and those who do that.

Unless, of course, they like you. Ie, the Left doesn't like Harper so him wanting gay unions instead of gay marriage makes him a homophobe. On the other hand, the Left likes Bill Clinton, so him suggesting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage does NOT make him homophobic. Likewise that Obama is a very religious man who opposes gay marriage doesn't make him homophobic either.

[Keepitsimple]

What constitutes homophobia? The yardsticks keep getting shifted. It used to be if you hated gays and called them fags and wanted to beat them up and wouldn't ever consider hiring one that was homphobia. Now, to some, if you have the slightest hesitation in supporting every item of "equality" on the gay manifesto you might as well be lurking in parks to beat up fags. No difference between you and those who do that.

Unless, of course, they like you. Ie, the Left doesn't like Harper so him wanting gay unions instead of gay marriage makes him a homophobe. On the other hand, the Left likes Bill Clinton, so him suggesting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage does NOT make him homophobic. Likewise that Obama is a very religious man who opposes gay marriage doesn't make him homophobic either.

Oh....stop talking all that logical, common sense, reality stuff. You're confusing people.

[August1991]

Frank Graves offers an apology:

In reflection, it was inappropriate and I should have used more measured terms and I dont think the Prime Ministers racist or a homophobe, nor do I think members of his cabinet or his caucus are, he told The Globe.

I do believe, and this gets more subtle, that there is a higher incidence of people who are less tolerant to homosexuals and more wary of other races, within the Conservative Party. I can demonstrate that empirically."

That does not mean that Conservatives or Albertans are homophobic or xenophobic, but it does mean that many people, and more people statistically that have those points of view, end up in that party than in other places. That may be a statement that people dont want to hear, but its empirically accurate and has been for a long time."

...Saying those things, which are true, does not mean that Conservatives are either homophobic or xenophobic, but it does mean that the party, for whatever reason, does seem to provide a haven for many people who feel that way systematically more likely than in other parts of the political spectrum.

But, I dont want to get focused on the issues of xenophobia and homophobia. I would rather, in fact, that I hadnt even included that as part of the debate.

G&M

What's the old line? Never complain, never explain. And if you do apologize, keep it short and sweet. This guy Graves is far too loquacious. It's a wonder that he managed to get $60 million from Chretien and Martin.

----

Anyway, this "apology" amounts to a resignation letter. I suspect that Graves will be looking for a new career and if I worked at Ekos, I'd be shopping my CV around.

And this apology also raises a pertinent question: who is more intolerant? The Left or the Right?

The Left presents itself as inclusive, understanding, peaceful, compromising but in fact it is very intolerant of people who oppose Leftist ideals.

The Right on the other hand appears rough and hard but in fact accepts individuals as they are and respects independence.

Frank Graves, in this apology, has exposed the grotesque generalizations and ugly intolerance of Canada's left.

Edited April 25, 2010 by August1991

[normanchateau]

Unless, of course, they like you. Ie, the Left doesn't like Harper so him wanting gay unions instead of gay marriage makes him a homophobe. On the other hand, the Left likes Bill Clinton, so him suggesting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage does NOT make him homophobic. Likewise that Obama is a very religious man who opposes gay marriage doesn't make him homophobic either.

It is not just "the Left" who does not like Harper. If it were, he'd have a majority government. Harper appeals neither to the Left nor the Centre. Harper is a social conservative whose appeal is limited largely to those on the Right.

Much as I'd like to debate same sex marriage, I was referring to Harper's opposition to making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals. Harper and his entire CA caucus voted against adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Most of the Left, the Centre and even PCs Joe Clark and Peter MacKay voted for Bill C-250, resulting in its passage. Although George Bush threatened to veto the addition of sexual orientation to US federal hate crimes legislation, Obama signed it into law:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/

Of course I am confident that Harper supporters will continue to find some other way to attempt justifying his opposition to Bill C-250, his opposition to same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition, his attempt to revisit the traditional definition of marriage after he became Prime Minister or anything else which remotely makes the Harper Conservatives look like a haven for homophobes.

[waldo]

sure Simple, watch those polls. Watch the EKOS polls that typically align with most other polls... then watch those Ipsos/Canwest polls, that typically have the CPC well above all the other polling results. (and, of course, those CPC supporters will be sure to factor in whatever significance they desire over Ipsos' Darryl Bricker's past employment within a Conservative government PMO - does anyone have Bricker's political contributions handy? Anyone... anyone...)

As usual Waldo, you miss the point. Mr. Graves (not Mr. Bricker or any other pollster) was the one who openly went on record in the G & M as having given the Liberals "strategic" advice. I don't doubt that there are people behind most pollsters who have some personal bias but for heaven's sake, their polls lose credibility when their most prominent representative is perceived to be so openly biased and in this case, openly inflammatory. Pollsters should be smart enough to keep their biases out of the paper. I doubt we'll be seeing Mr. Graves much from now on.

no – the point is those choosing to categorize Graves’ mutterings as, “strategic advice”… as a reflection of presumed polling bias… can’t show the actual EKOS poll results as biased – unless they’re also willing to call most other polls, equalling biased, since EKOS polls aren’t outliers in the mix. Essentially, that “strategic advice” amounts to Graves suggesting the need for an outward and overt delineation of the Liberal brand. It’s clear Conservatives and their partisans simply didn’t care for Graves suggesting Liberals clearly define themselves different from, "wedge decisive, parochial, moralistic, intolerant, autocratic... or... pro-Palin”, Conservatives – go figure. Referencing Darryl Bricker’s past workings with a Conservative government, is simply a handy go-to for those beaking off about EKOS poll bias, particularly given the preponderance of outliers within Bricker’s Ipsos/Canwest poll results favouring Conservatives. Just sayin.

[Argus]

Much as I'd like to debate same sex marriage, I was referring to Harper's opposition to making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals. Harper and his entire CA caucus voted against adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation.

As someone who thinks the hate crimes law is an abomonination and a dangerous affront to free speech I applaud him on that one. The inclusion of homosexuals would not have had any impact on the many people advocating the murder of homosexuals.... well, at least I assume there's someone somewhere in this country advocating that though I've never heard of them.

No, what it would have done is given the Left another club to use against Christians. And as much as the Lefties blinked their eyes innocently and said they had no intention of trying to bring religious people to court and punishing them for their anti-gay views we all knew that was exactly what they wanted. Hell, I'm not religious and it was damned clear to me from the outset!

[normanchateau]

No, what it would have done is given the Left another club to use against Christians. And as much as the Lefties blinked their eyes innocently and said they had no intention of trying to bring religious people to court and punishing them for their anti-gay views we all knew that was exactly what they wanted. Hell, I'm not religious and it was damned clear to me from the outset!

You're not religious? In previous posts you claimed to be a member of a well known religious group whose priests include large numbers of admitted child molesters.

Obama faced the same arguments that Harper did from religious extremists who feared that adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation would be used against Christians. Obama ignored the extremists. So did most Canadian MPs who passed this legislation. Your church is still free to condemn homosexuality and serve as a sanctuary for pedophiles. Bill C-250 has not changed that. Conservatives should not be surprised that Graves accuses them of being a haven for homophobes when they retain as leader a born-again, religious extremist like Stephen Harper who opposes extending sexual orientation into hate crimes legislation.

[Argus]

You're not religious? In previous posts you claimed to be a member of a well known religious group whose priests include large numbers of admitted child molesters.

I believe I've admitted to being born and raised Catholic. But I'm about as lapsed a Catholic as you'll find. And, just btw, the percentage of priests who have molested youths is about the same as the percentage of doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc., who have molested youths.

Obama faced the same arguments that Harper did from religious extremists who feared that adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation would be used against Christians.

The basic difference, of course, which you are either too dishonest to mention or to ignorant to understand, is that the US hate crimes legislation merely adds gays to a law which criminalizes actual physical violence against identifable groups, whereas the Canadian law Harper voted against was intended to criminalize speech.

[normanchateau]

the percentage of priests who have molested youths is about the same as the percentage of doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc., who have molested youths.

Show me the data that show the percentages are the same. Even the RC Church admits to 4% of priests. Let's see your data for physicians and lawyers. And do you seriously believe that a regulatory professional group for physicians and lawyers would conceal incidences of child molesting as Bishops and the last two Popes have done?

Anyway, I digress from the more relevant point. Frank Graves is right that CPC is a haven for homophobes. To his credit, he stood by this point when he made his apology.

[normanchateau]

whereas the Canadian law Harper voted against was intended to criminalize speech.

Harper is not opposed to criminalizing speech except as it applies to homosexuals and lesbians. He supported banning the entry into Canada of a UK MP whose positions he opposed. He supports hate crimes legislation, i.e., speech restrictions, as it relates to promoting murder against an identifiable group based on race, religion and ethnicity. He draws the line at homosexuals and lesbians. No wonder Graves views Harper's party as a haven for homophobes.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe I've admitted to being born and raised Catholic. But I'm about as lapsed a Catholic as you'll find. And, just btw, the percentage of priests who have molested youths is about the same as the percentage of doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc., who have molested youths.

Argus, I have to ask you for a cite - but for a different reason this time. I have defended the Catholic faith on this topic, and I would appreciate some evidence to assist me in future, thanks.

[Keepitsimple]

no the point is those choosing to categorize Graves mutterings as, strategic advice… as a reflection of presumed polling bias… cant show the actual EKOS poll results as biased unless theyre also willing to call most other polls, equalling biased, since EKOS polls arent outliers in the mix. Essentially, that strategic advice amounts to Graves suggesting the need for an outward and overt delineation of the Liberal brand. Its clear Conservatives and their partisans simply didnt care for Graves suggesting Liberals clearly define themselves different from, "wedge decisive, parochial, moralistic, intolerant, autocratic... or... pro-Palin, Conservatives go figure. Referencing Darryl Brickers past workings with a Conservative government, is simply a handy go-to for those beaking off about EKOS poll bias, particularly given the preponderance of outliers within Brickers Ipsos/Canwest poll results favouring Conservatives. Just sayin.

.....and I'm just sayin' I don't think we'll be seeing Mr. Graves for awhile because he couldn't keep his mouth shut. If other pollsters (you named Darryl Bricker) spewed their bias as openly as Mr. Graves, they too would deserve to be pilloried and rightly or wrongly, the credibility of their polls could be open to question.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Of course I am confident that Harper supporters will continue to find some other way to attempt justifying his opposition to Bill C-250, his opposition to same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition, his attempt to revisit the traditional definition of marriage after he became Prime Minister or anything else which remotely makes the Harper Conservatives look like a haven for homophobes.

Let me jog your memory. In 1999, Paul Martin and most of the Liberal Party voted against changing the Traditional Definition of Marriage. A short 5 years later, thanks to some rulings by the Supreme Court, Liberals "discovered" the Charter of Rights - which of course had been there all along. Why did Paul Martin - who originally said it was a matter of his religion - and all those Liberals change what had been a deeply personal matter of conscience? What really changed their mind? Did they simply not understand the Charter of Rights? Indeed, this was a defining moment for the Liberals - that their principles could change for political expediency.

[Wild Bill]

Show me the data that show the percentages are the same. Even the RC Church admits to 4% of priests. Let's see your data for physicians and lawyers. And do you seriously believe that a regulatory professional group for physicians and lawyers would conceal incidences of child molesting as Bishops and the last two Popes have done?

Anyway, I digress from the more relevant point. Frank Graves is right that CPC is a haven for homophobes. To his credit, he stood by this point when he made his apology.

What's your definition of a homophobe? Judging by what I've read from you, it would seem to be anyone who disagrees with anything demanded by any gay lobby group, anywhere and for any reason.

Anyone who supports 9 gay issues but who balks at a 10th would still be labeled a homophobe!

Or have I misunderstood your position?

[capricorn]

Of course I am confident that Harper supporters will continue to find some other way to attempt justifying his opposition to Bill C-250, his opposition to same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition, his attempt to revisit the traditional definition of marriage after he became Prime Minister or anything else which remotely makes the Harper Conservatives look like a haven for homophobes.

And I am confident that you will continue to present the same arguments that the Conservatives look like a haven for homophobes. What is interesting is that in spite of all efforts to make it look like Harper attracts knuckle draggers, neanderthals, rednecks, homophobes and religious zealots, (have I forgotten any? oh yes, brown shirts) the Liberals can't overtake them in the polls. You'd think the opposition would work harder to unseat a bunch they perceive as destructive to Canadian society. Increasingly, it looks like the opposition is working to avoid an election. It also looks like Canadians are not engaged in the opposition's culture war.

[Argus]

Show me the data that show the percentages are the same. Even the RC Church admits to 4% of priests. Let's see your data for physicians and lawyers. And do you seriously believe that a regulatory professional group for physicians and lawyers would conceal incidences of child molesting as Bishops and the last two Popes have done?

What planet are you living on? Child abuse was ignored, and children often threatened and punished by PARENTS who didn't believe them or want to hear about it, not to mention by schools, by police, and by everyone else. It was a subject nobody wanted to hear about. Despite the publicity there's no evidence it affected the RC church more than it did society in general.

Anyway, I digress from the more relevant point. Frank Graves is right that CPC is a haven for homophobes. To his credit, he stood by this point when he made his apology.

I think we've already shown that to you, a homophobe is simply what you call anyone you don't like.

[waldo]

the ever resolute, wedge practicing Ezra Levant - oh my!

[bush_cheney2004]

the ever resolute, wedge practicing Ezra Levant - oh my!

Hey...this is pretty funny....very polished! LOL!

[normanchateau]

And, just btw, the percentage of priests who have molested youths is about the same as the percentage of doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc., who have molested youths.

Show me the data which support your false claim that the percentage of Roman Catholic priests who are child molesters is the same as the percentage of physicians and lawyers who are child molesters.

[ToadBrother]

Frank Graves, in this apology, has exposed the grotesque generalizations and ugly intolerance of Canada's left.

Which largely seem identical to the Right's.

In other words, the problem here, once again, is partisanship. You have no problem with right-wing partisanship because it strokes you the right way. You find the other side's heinous because you aren't singing with that choir. Sadly, your partisanship blinds to the hypocrisy of your own position.

[normanchateau]

Let me jog your memory. In 1999, Paul Martin and most of the Liberal Party voted against changing the Traditional Definition of Marriage. A short 5 years later, thanks to some rulings by the Supreme Court, Liberals "discovered" the Charter of Rights - which of course had been there all along. Indeed, this was a defining moment for the Liberals - that their principles could change for political expediency.

You raise a valid point. The Liberals, or at least some of them, did change their position on the Traditional Definition of Marriage, and they were likely motivated by political expediency.

On the issue of C-250, however, a majority of Liberals voted to make it a hate crime to promote the murder of homosexuals on all readings of the Bill. All Bloc and NDP MPs voted in favour. All 62 Canadian Alliance MPs, including their leader Stephen Harper, voted against it. Harper gets credit for not being motivated by political expediency on C-250 since he'd lose few votes, except to the Christian Heritage Party, had he voted for C-250.

Does this mean that Harper would never resort to political expediency and that political expediency is the exclusive domain of the Liberals? Judge for yourself:

"In 1988, as chief policy architect for Manning's Reform party, Harper authored a document calling on Ottawa to withdraw from all universal social programs and leave them to the provinces. In 1993, as a Reform MP, he supported a caucus statement committing the party to "restore to the provinces the administrative jurisdiction (in health) that the federal government has usurped." In 2001, he co-authored an open letter to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein urging him to drop out of medicare. In a 2003 newspaper article, he wrote that the Canada Health Act should be scrapped and replaced with 10 separate agreements between Ottawa and each province. As late as 2004, he wrote in the Star that one of his guiding principles in health care was that it must remain in provincial jurisdiction."

Finally, in 2005, Stephen Harper embraced the Canada Health Act, a complete flip flop from 20 years opposing it:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/91919834-harper-backs-medicare-law

I'm sure you don't believe that Harper's flip flop on health care reflects anything more than political expediency. Harper has been a politician all of his life. He's a professional politician. It's the only career that he's ever had since leaving university. Yet it took him more than 20 years to figure out that if he wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada, he must pretend that he now believes in the Canada Health Act. And if he's not pretending, and now sincerely believes in the Canada Health Act, he must be one of the slowest learners in Canadian political history.