Harper Withdraws nominee for Ethics Role

[Argus]

if anything, I appear to be the one that's disturbing them . I think the reason for this is that I'm not as far left as they assume, but nor am I as far left as others assume. The one thing I do do is treat others with respect as long as they see fit to do likewise, and unfortunately, many people prefer to hurl insults instead of sticking to the argument.

I'm not that far left either...more centre-left. However, when I point out Harper flaws (egads!); I've been called everything from a Left-Lib Liar to a Liberal hugging socialist; despite the fact that I'm not really a Liberal supporter and detest what they did with our money.

One of the more amusing aspects of political discussions here is that NO ONE on the Left seems to be willing to admit they are anything much but centrist. The most extreme lefties, in particular, seem to believe, all evidence to the contrary, that they're just a shade to the left of centre. Mind you, they also believe that everyone else is to the right of Adolph Hitler. In fact, almost everyone on the right sight of the spectrum IS Adolph Hitler, or might as well be.

Presenting Morgan; a Reform/Harper/CPC fundraiser with a history of racist remarks and ties to the Fraser Institute; is partisan politics at it's worst.

Morgan, a wealthy and succesful CEO who is well-respected by others, who yes indeed, was alligned with the Tories, was willing to do a job for free out of love of country. I don't know who you Lefties imagine you'll get to do such a job who never previously involved themselves in politics. That he gave a speech to the Frasier Institute is hardly a bar to employment with the government (aside, if he'd given a speech to Castro and had a picture of them together hugging you'd not have complained). As to the "history of racist remarks" that just goes to your lack of credibility and honesty.

He has already taken a Totalitarian approach to running our country, so no way should we give him that much power. Can you say Gestapo?

Generally speaking, I tend to instantly dismiss anyone who compares mainstream people to Nazis as mindless cretins without credibility. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Oh, but wait, you're practically a centrist, not the type to make Nazi accusations just because people are a little to the right of Centre. No, of course not, not a centrist like you.

[Argus]

Sure, the liberals said it was a "patronage" appointment, how patently absurd! They of all folks should recognize patronage when they see it, but I guess they never paid off old party friends with lucrative political plums.

Except that, Mr. Morgan, would have been paid only $1.00 ... After years of Liberal patronage, it was exactly what Canada needed, it was the best deal around for eons, Too bad the NDP and Liberal majority on this committee couldn't look past partisan politics and do what was best for the country.

I wonder if Gilbert Parent is still collecting his $250,000 per year as "Ambassador to the Environment". You'd think during all these years he'd have managed to come up with a solution to Global Warming. Then again, he's probably too busy sexually harrassing his new secretary, and running from the lawsuit initiated by his old one... not to mention his wife.

[Temagami Scourge]

Argoose:

Wow. I've seen some inane comments on this site, but this has to take the cake. We shouldn't care if 80% of the gang violence is Jamaican because, like, most of the countries which fought world war two were Europeans.

Inane comments? Like 80% of gang violence is Jamaican? Please Argus, how did you arrive at the 80% figure? Is 80% of the gang violence in Thunder Bay Jamaican-related? Is that the same for Montreal, Halifax and Winnipeg too? can you actually prove the 80% figure, or is that just wishful thinking because you want to avoid embarrassment of overstating your case on morgan's behalf??

or Inane comments like most of the countries participating in WWII were European? Well, France did a lot of surrendering, but Senegal, Morocco, Algeria, Chad, the Congo, Tunisia, Madagascar and Indo-China (Cambodia, Laos and VietNam) all fought against the Germans or Japanese on France's behalf. India, Ceylon, Hong Kong, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Eqypt, Palestine, Guyana, Venezuela, Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua and a host of Carribean countries all sent peole to fight for Britain, and of course, Countries likethe U.S., New Zealand, Austrailia and Canada all had large numbers of minority groups in uniform, but we have to call them "european".

Speaking of European, Argus, how has your family protected this country? My Dad, Uncle, Aunt and close to a dozen cousins all fought the Nazis in WWII. Both my grandfathers, and a number of cousins fought the Kaiser in WW I. Three relations fought in Korea; currently I have a number of relations in both Afghanistan and Iraq with the US forces. A great-grandpa fought in the Boer war. Four relations from my Dad's side fought against the Yankees in 1812, but even more from my Mom's side fought on the Niagara Peninsula against the same enemy. I hava number of relations that fought in the Revolutionary War, and some who even fought for the Union in the American Civil War.

Where was your family, Argus? Were you the enemy and you just migrated here within the past couple of generations, like the Stronachs? What was your family doing during 1812?

Nothing Morgan said was out of line, nothing he said was false.

What...all Jamaicans are inherently criminal. He was pretty clear making that statement. Too bad there is no such thing as law-abiding Jamaican-Canadians. Speaking of which, the Jamiaicans that immigrated in the 1950's and 1960's, are they in the same boat too? Is there a distinction between the "good" Jamaicans and the "bad" ones? i'd love to know how you determine what a good and bad Jamiaican is...especially by sight.

enlighten us, Argus.

[Argus]

Argoose:

Wow. I've seen some inane comments on this site, but this has to take the cake. We shouldn't care if 80% of the gang violence is Jamaican because, like, most of the countries which fought world war two were Europeans.

Inane comments? Like 80% of gang violence is Jamaican? Please Argus, how did you arrive at the 80% figure?

That was posted earlier in the thread, it came from Macleans.

Speaking of European, Argus, how has your family protected this country? My Dad, Uncle, Aunt and close to a dozen cousins all fought the Nazis in WWII.

And why would I possibly care how many of your relatives did what? What has that got to do with Morgan?

Nothing Morgan said was out of line, nothing he said was false.

What...all Jamaicans are inherently criminal. He was pretty clear making that statement.

I dislike repeating myself: The only person who has ever made that statement is YOU. No one else even hinted at it.

enlighten us, Argus.

I don't think there's enough light to enlighten you.

[Canuck E Stan]

Temagami Scourge,

Not creating delusions is enlightenment.

-Bodhidharma

[Temagami Scourge]

Canchuk-i-stan:

"Not creating delusions is enlightenment. -Bodhidharma"

insightful words....try this one:

"Abiding by the law is good, as long as we can ignore it when we want to. -Caledonian residents"

or

"Jamaicans are natural-born violent criminals...no really...it says so in MacLeans - G. Morgan"

[shoop]

Holy crap are you weak?

The left "won" the Gwyn Morgan battle. Get over it dick.

"Jamaicans are natural-born violent criminals...no really...it says so in MacLeans - G. Morgan"

[Greg]

Enough with the condescending remarks. This thread has dissolved into nothing more than pathetic race-baiting and I've had enough of it.

Everyone needs to sit back, take a deep breath and move on.

[shoop]

Because Temagami Scourge has repeatedly tried to get a rise out of people, continually breaks the rules of the forum and nothing is being done to stop his behaviour...

Enough with the condescending remarks. This thread has dissolved into nothing more than pathetic race-baiting and I've had enough of it.

Everyone needs to sit back, take a deep breath and move on.

[FTA Lawyer]

Personally, I don't have a problem with racial profiling depending on how its done. If witnesses seean amish male gunning down some people at a truck stop, then by jeepers the police should look for an Amish male.

The problem with profiling is that the net often is cast too wide, and all this does is create bitterness among the group getting stopped/searched/questioned etc. Morgan buys into the blanket approach in his full speech, and that is not only unhelpful to society at large, it gives the impression that certain groups are inherently criminal from top to bottom, and that is insulting.

The second part of the problem is the manner in which "our leader" carried on about the appointment. Unlike other posters who assume a conspiracy, I simply think that Harper was caught with his pants down by giving a position of responsibility to someone who paints whole groups of people as inherently violent.

To those of us who don't share Morgans' heritage, non-Caucasian criminality rings hollow when you consider who started the big wars last century. It certainly wasn't the Jamaicans or Vietnamese.

So it is best to be careful on how you proceed with racial profiling.

Having previously "taken my ball and gone home" on this thread, I'm not sure why I'm jumping back into the mess that it has become, but here I go...

Police searching for a suspect in a murder based on an eyewitness description is not racial profiling...it is searching for a suspect based on an eyewitness description.

Racial profiling involves directing investigative efforts based on race. For example, undercover police in an airport using drug dogs to search black people getting off an airplane from Jamaica but not searching the non-black passengers getting off the same airplane based on prior statistics that support a conclusion that indigenous Jamaicans are more likely to be drug dealers.

Your misinterpretation of racial profiling is similar to your misinterpretation of Morgan's comments. Love him or hate him, his comments do not even come close to standing for the proposition that "all Jamaicans are inherently violent" or that they are "natural born killers" as you have attempted to argue.

If you wish to be treated respectfully then you need to be intellectually honest with your assertions. I am happy to welcome someone with differing views so don't take my comments as me being offended because you may disagree with me. However, referrring to other posters with nicknames that you have created for them and taunting someone about where his family was during the war of 1812 are disrespectful, unintelligent and unwelcome on this board.

Stick to the topic at hand and be passionate but not inflammatory with your remarks and you will be welcomed as a valuable contributor.

FTA

[Temagami Scourge]

Because Temagami Scourge has repeatedly tried to get a rise out of people, continually breaks the rules of the forum and nothing is being done to stop his behaviour...

Enough with the condescending remarks. This thread has dissolved into nothing more than pathetic race-baiting and I've had enough of it.

Everyone needs to sit back, take a deep breath and move on.

Shoop: Chill out and quit your whining, and don't act like you are all perfect...you're responsible for a fair amount of bad behaviour. Just do as Greg says. If I can, then surely someone as "smart" as you has the same ability to change and adapt.

[Temagami Scourge]

FTA:

Having previously "taken my ball and gone home" on this thread, I'm not sure why I'm jumping back into the mess that it has become, but here I go...

I suspect its because I'm a compelling and prolific forum user, and this impresses and exasperates you at the same time, therefore you are drawn here like a fly to....ice cream.

Police searching for a suspect in a murder based on an eyewitness description is not racial profiling...it is searching for a suspect based on an eyewitness description.

You are absolutely right. I stand corrected, although I was just trying to use an example and knew that profiling means much, much more...having been through it myself.

Racial profiling involves directing investigative efforts based on race. For example, undercover police in an airport using drug dogs to search black people getting off an airplane from Jamaica but not searching the non-black passengers getting off the same airplane based on prior statistics that support a conclusion that indigenous Jamaicans are more likely to be drug dealers.

Exactly. That is racial profiling. We also have "youth" profiling, which reflects the times the police stop youth because they "know" youth are "likely" up to no good.

Your misinterpretation of racial profiling is similar to your misinterpretation of Morgan's comments. Love him or hate him, his comments do not even come close to standing for the proposition that "all Jamaicans are inherently violent" or that they are "natural born killers" as you have attempted to argue.

Although I agree that the "Amish" point was not racial profiling, I do think I made it pretty clear that Morgan was acting like your hypothetical undercover cop searching Jamaicans. I disagree with your assessment that his comments do not come close to the Natural-born killers image. The man said Jamaicans -not some, not just the criminal element, not just the Rasta's of the fellows in montego Bay, but Jamiacans in general, come from a violent and crime-ridden society. To take this one step further...I know Jamaicans' that came to Toronto after WWII, some who came in the 50's, 60's and 70's. They make up a significant population, but if I knew Gwyn morgan and no Jamiacans, then I'd naturally assume that ALL jamaicans are somehow tied to violence...and this is clearly not the case. Morgan was wrong, as simple as that. If he wants, I'll write his speeches for him so he doesn't make the same error.

If you wish to be treated respectfully then you need to be intellectually honest with your assertions

.

What? I'm not?

I am happy to welcome someone with differing views so don't take my comments as me being offended because you may disagree with me. However, referrring to other posters with nicknames that you have created for them and taunting someone about where his family was during the war of 1812 are disrespectful, unintelligent and unwelcome on this board.

funny...I didn't see anyone stopping those same characters from making derisory comments about Native people. I'd gladly stop giving out written bitch-slaps the minute I stop getting racist comments. As a case in point, you've not made any derogatory, anti-native comments, and I've never addressed you in the negative. Would you not agree? I mean, even anti-native stuff appeared on this thread, and this is about Morgan! you'll also see that it wasn't me that took this topic off on a tangent. I've repeatedly tried to discuss Morgan, only to get ambushed about something else.

So please ensure that others, and not just me, get a tongue-lashing for their commentary.

Shoop would be a good example of someone who needs to be brought to heel.

Stick to the topic at hand and be passionate but not inflammatory with your remarks and you will be welcomed as a valuable contributor.

I don't really need the advice, because I don't see myself as the problem child here, but I do intend to be a valuable contributor, so Nya:weh (means "thank you" in mohawk...pronounced phoenetically as Knee-yow-wah, but say it as one word, not three syllables)

[Argus]

I am happy to welcome someone with differing views so don't take my comments as me being offended because you may disagree with me. However, referrring to other posters with nicknames that you have created for them and taunting someone about where his family was during the war of 1812 are disrespectful, unintelligent and unwelcome on this board.

funny...I didn't see anyone stopping those same characters from making derisory comments about Native people.

There have been none in this thread.

I'd gladly stop giving out written bitch-slaps the minute I stop getting racist comments.

Your interpretation of what constitutes a racist comment appears to differ from everyone else.

I mean, even anti-native stuff appeared on this thread, and this is about Morgan! you'll also see that it wasn't me that took this topic off on a tangent. I've repeatedly tried to discuss Morgan, only to get ambushed about something else.

I checked back. What the hell, I was a bit bored. The only posts on this thread which referred to natives came from you.

post 17 you compared him to ahenakew, who made specific, virulently anti-semitic statements. You also referred to partisan whiners, and comments about GG jean saying things about white criminals

post 35 you referred to yourself, ie your perspective, as that of "a native Canadian"

By post 39 you were already distorting people's nics and insulting people freely.

In post 47 you again referred to the six nations thread, recently closed by Greg, largely due to your similar flame baiting behaviour there. You also referred to "your good buddies who yell obscenities at the native protestors"

In post 63 hey...I know Ahenakew. he's a nice guy. Did a lot for Native folks."

In post 67 "standing up for natives", suggested I thought you were an "uppity Indian"

In post 78 you talked about the "thread full of examples where your buddies go on and on about Natives being criminals, being lazy, freeloading off of Canadians"

Throughout this thread you have been insulting and denigrating towards others, your manner has been full of contempt and condescension, and you have labelled anyone who disagreed with you a racist. Now you're pretending you've been the victim of anti-native behaviour. And all of it is very clearly dishonest, as anyone who cares to look back on the thread can see.

Stick to the topic at hand and be passionate but not inflammatory with your remarks and you will be welcomed as a valuable contributor.

I don't really need the advice, because I don't see myself as the problem child here

Would you care to put that to a vote?

[Temagami Scourge]

Argus:

feel free to look into the mirror....

Throughout this thread you have been insulting and denigrating towards others, your manner has been full of contempt and condescension, and you have labelled anyone who disagreed with you a racist. Now you're pretending you've been the victim of anti-non-native behaviour. And all of it is very clearly dishonest, as anyone who cares to look back on the thread can see.

Well, I've stopped trading insults. I'm just trying to focus on the topic at hand.

You seem stuck in the past, though. Try working through it all.

[Argus]

Well, I've stopped trading insults. I'm just trying to focus on the topic at hand.

You seem stuck in the past, though. Try working through it all.

Stuck in the past? I was simply responding to your snivelling about how nothing was your fault, that it wasn't you who took this thread off topic, and that you were simply responding to all the anti-native comments you were being subjected to. And when I point out that there have been NO comments about natives or you as a native whatsoever, that all the native comments have come from you, you pretend like you've turned over a new leaf and are wounded that I didn't.

Turning over a new leaf requires at least a small measure of honesty. Is that beyond your capabilities?

[Temagami Scourge]

Argus:

Stuck in the past? I was simply responding to your snivelling about how nothing was your fault, that it wasn't you who took this thread off topic, and that you were simply responding to all the anti-native comments you were being subjected to. And when I point out that there have been NO comments about natives or you as a native whatsoever, that all the native comments have come from you, you pretend like you've turned over a new leaf and are wounded that I didn't.

Turning over a new leaf requires at least a small measure of honesty. Is that beyond your capabilities?

Look Argus, I'm trying to be civil, and I am disgusted with the fact that I let my anger overcome me; however, you certainly aren't going to tell me that you are blameless in this episode. If you can't let your anger drop, then that is your problem. I'm not going to go through every post you've ever written to "prove" I'm right...I'm just leaving it behind and trying to move on.

All I'm suggesting is that you try the same, and leave out the personal attacks. If you doubt my sincerity, then there is nothing I can do about it. I just hope you can change and be civil, whether you like me or not.

[Temagami Scourge]

Sorry all, I apologize for going off topic on this thread.

[Argus]

Turning over a new leaf requires at least a small measure of honesty. Is that beyond your capabilities?

Look Argus, I'm trying to be civil, and I am disgusted with the fact that I let my anger overcome me; however, you certainly aren't going to tell me that you are blameless in this episode.

I'm never entirely blameless in most of these things. And one can suggest Shoop and a few others had a hand, as well. But all of us were responding to you and your flame bating and insults.

I'm not going to go through every post you've ever written to "prove" I'm right...I'm just leaving it behind and trying to move on.

Yes, you've moved on to another thread of flame bating, which I expect will shortly be ended just like the last one.

All I'm suggesting is that you try the same, and leave out the personal attacks.

But I made no personal attacks. I simply pointed out that your complaint about how people were dragging in natives to this thread and calling you racist names was an outright lie, and went to the trouble of going through the entire thread to discover that the only person who ever mentioned natives - repeatedly - was you. How is that a personal attack? Or do you believe exposing your dishonesty is a personal attack?

[betsy]

I wonder why, if he considers colour and race "irrelevant," why he brought up the issue with the Jamaican and Asian immigrants. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to target specific races when discussing crime, but it is certainly racist. Some people take exception to such generalized discussions and they have every right to. Calling them fascist for doing so is bordering on Godwin's Law.

If the statistics and evidence are accurately saying there is problem within a minority group, why should not it be pointed out? He is stating an obvious fact.

It is not a criticism of ALL people belonging to that race. Elders or leaders/civic-minded members from that group could come up with something to help their own....for who would understand ethnic members more other than fellow-ethnic members?

Everyone in Toronto and other areas affected by increasing violence are all clamoring to have crime dealt with....that's one of the election platform, thus one of the reasons why people voted for the Conservatives.

And they include people from various ethnic groups, especially those belonging from the black and asian communities.

[betsy]

Morgan said this at the Fraser Insitute dinner:

"Jamaica has one of the world's highest crime rates driven mainly by the violence between gangs competing for dominance in the Caribbean drug trade. Why do we expect different behaviour in Toronto, Ontario, than in Kingston, Jamaica?"

He went on to state the same about Vietnamese immigrants and their predisposition to violent crime as well. Yes, he has also been a vocal critic of all things Liberal, but regardless of his success at EnCana, anyone in their right mind knows you don't make racists comments and expect everyone to ignore it. It didn't help an idiot like ahenakew, regardless of how many medals he won for being an utstanding Canadian, and Harper should have known better that to try to put morgan in the Commisioners chair in the first place.

There is no comparison between Ahanekew's comment and Morgan's.

Ahanekew had called jews "a disease that ought to be wiped out....", then went on to justify the holocaust. (if I'm not mistaken?). That is not only obviously and undeniably racist...it is also unmistakenly a DANGEROUS hate speech!

[betsy]

If you know anything about the GTA, you'd know that the police are stopping as many Jamaicans as they can. Unfortunately, they also stop a lot of decent Jamaicans, Somalians, St. Lucian's, Ghanians, Rwandans and pretty near every type of black person possible. Sometimes things get out of hand and these decent people get shot or beaten by the police, or mis-identified by crime witnesses as criminals.

If a witness describes the perpetrator as "a black who drove away in a red car!"....do you think the cops should stop ALL RED CARS...including those driven by WHITES, just so not to be accused of being racist???

You're talking GTA...a city that's predominantly peopled by blacks and asians...and yes, gang-members in this place are predominantly peopled by blacks and asians!

As a member of the asian group, I sure would like to see the cops doing their jobs in the most professional and EFFICIENT manner...and not waste time and tax dollars trying to be stupidly politically correct.