Jump to content

Harper Withdraws nominee for Ethics Role


Recommended Posts

Correct me if I am wrong, but this whole kafuffle is all because Canadians are afraid of racial profiling?

Well if the perpetrators are of a certain descent, their community would be a great place to start looking for them don't you think? But of course you don't stop there and follow the problem to whatever communities it may lead you to.

If you listen to opponents of racial profiling you would think those of us in support of it are advocating arresting every black person out there and put them in concentration camps. We're not. It just smart investigating. If you know your perp is a 30 year old black guy, you don't start interviewing 90 year old white ladies. And if we know the perp is a white guy we shouldn't be looking for a black guy. It's pretty simple.

He didn't say a thing wrong.

I can't remember who said he couldn't trust him. But I think your partisanship prevented you from trusting him before he said that. I'm not damning you for that. For that same reason there are a whole slew of Liberal and NDP people I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw them. Besides, I don't think even the people we vote for should be explicitly trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I couldn't be arsed to read this whole thread, bogged down as it is in "You're a racist!/No I'm not!" exchanges, but did anyone bother to point out that the committee's vote is non-binding? In other words: Harper is free to appoint Morgan to the post if he wanted to. But it looks like, rather than stick with his man, he's going to cry about "partisan politics!"

This is true BD, but just like the war extension vote, he was going to respect the moral majority. I know that seems like a noble thought considering our past governments!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true BD, but just like the war extension vote, he was going to respect the moral majority. I know that seems like a noble thought considering our past governments!!

But what of his statement that "“We'll obviously need a majority government to do that in the future?" Obviously, if Harper was serious about "cleaning up government" and really believes Morgan is the man for the job, there's literally nothing to stop him from proceeding. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Harper expected Morgan's bid to fail when he selected him. Partisan politics is a two (or in this case, four) way street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is more along the lines that Morgan, used to dealing with competent business people that actually make rational decisions, was so frustrated by the attacks he chose to return to retirement instead. I doubt if Harper stood down, its not his style. Likely Morgan quit after being relentlessly attacked when he just wanted to do a good job.

Canada's loss, blame your opposition parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don Martin said it best.

In the end, when or if the parliamentary committee vetting of appointments returns under a Harper minority or majority government, no blue-chip business leaders will apply.

Only the lowest common denominator of applicant, those without political involvement or the slightest hint of free-thinking public commentary, will pass the MP smell test.

This is quite sad.

But the Liberals definitely got their way. *If* they ever form government again they won't have to worry about their appointments being scrutinized. Too bad the NDP and the Bloc fell for their little game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't be arsed to read this whole thread, bogged down as it is in "You're a racist!/No I'm not!" exchanges, but did anyone bother to point out that the committee's vote is non-binding? In other words: Harper is free to appoint Morgan to the post if he wanted to. But it looks like, rather than stick with his man, he's going to cry about "partisan politics!"
That's disingenuous, BD. If Harper had gone over the Committee's head, all hell would have broken loose as media and opposition jumped on Harper for being anti-democratic (remember Emerson?).
But what of his statement that "“We'll obviously need a majority government to do that in the future?" Obviously, if Harper was serious about "cleaning up government" and really believes Morgan is the man for the job, there's literally nothing to stop him from proceeding.
Nothing except a bunch of partisan MPs who will vote against anyone to embarrass the government. I can understand the NDP's position on Morgan's nomination - he's hardly the kind of person the NDP likes. But the Liberals and the BQ were being partisan. Harper's comment referred to the need for a new crew.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if Harper expected Morgan's bid to fail when he selected him. Partisan politics is a two (or in this case, four) way street.
BD, your theory is too slick by half. Harper's anger and frustration were genuine. There were four nominees for this commission and each one made sense. This was no setup.
And because they called him a racist, with the slick job pointing out his connection to "bigoil"(evil people THEY are), the common public automatically dislikes him, Only because of media spin!!
We don't know what the public thinks because all we've really heard is a few MPs.
Sadly for the left, the opposition used their limited power too quickly and too harshly. This was a bad move for Canada, but will ultimately be a good thing as it makes it that much more likely the Conservatives will win a majority next year.
When all is said and done, I think there is more egg on opposition faces than on Morgan's face.

The people who criticized this nomination will never vote Tory. But there are many potential Tory voters who are offended by this charade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argoose:

"The point is there are a far, far, far higher number of violent street criminals of Jamaican ethnicity than there should be given their numbers."

Yes...and this in a city where the murder rate is dropping every year.

No it isn't.

So, according to you and Morgan, Jamaicans are natural-born killers flooding the streets of T.O. in blood with fewer deaths each year!

No one said anything about Jamaicans being "natural born killers." However, the murder rate in jamaica is the highest in the world, and the Jamaican community in Toronto is responsible for a greatly disproportionate amount of violent crime. Take from that what you will. Oh, and the murder rate is not dropping.

But to get back to Morgan, the Star printed Morgan's entire speech from the Fraser Institute, and it sounds worse than what I initially expected! Not only is it typical "angry old Whiteman" talk, but the gist of what he says when he is singling out people is that the majority of Canadians ie. those who aren't like him, are lazy whiners seeking a handout.

So what? He's entitled to his opinion.

But to focus on Jamaicans, Morgan said this: Here is the root cause they all know, but don't talk about: the vast majority of violent, lawless immigrants come from countries where the culture is dominated by violence and lawlessness. 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

I read this again and again, and all I know from the above quote is that Jamaicans are lawless, violent criminals. They are inherently criminal because their culture is dominated by violence and lawlessness. Ergo, Jamaicans in Toronto are bringing this lawlessness and violence with them..

Most of which is undeniable - all except that part about Jamaicans being lawless, violent criminals. They simply have a lot more lawless, violent criminals than any other culture.

....which translates into an ever-decreasing homicide rate in this city.

Year Murders rate

2005 78 3

2004 64 2.5

2003 66 2.3

2002 65 2.5

2001 60 2.3

nice logic, Argoose.

Even if you weren't wrong - which you invariably are, not being noticeably bright or well-read, people are scared much more by wild gang shootouts which kill innocents than they are by quiet, backroom knivings of one scumbag by another. And the Jamaicans appear to be a very racous bunch when it comes to shooting people down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because *you* extend Morgan's story to Jamaican immigrants the Canadian people should be deprived of having one of the country's premier ex-CEOs chairing a committee that vets public appointments???

So not only are Toronto's crime problems due largely to Jamaican immigrants, the country's problems are due largely to people in poverty. Every person in poverty is lazy and is justified in blaming only laziness as the cause of their situation.

I was using sarcasm.

You aren't very good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoop:

Naci's dead-on right. Morgan blames the poor for being lazy, and thus creating problems for the rest of Canada by being lazy.

That is bullshit. In essence, Morgan is doing the same thing that all the other whiners have been doing on the Six Nations thread by castigating ALL natives as lazy and ALL natives are drunks and ALL natives are this and that. Now we hear that ALL Jamaicans are violent, lawless criminals, and that ALL welfare recipients are lazy.

The only person who has suggested all Jamaicans are violent lawless criminals is YOU.

However, both the Jamaican and native cultures have problems. Theirs is with violence and drugs. Yours is with dependancy and alcohol. Just as most murders in Toronto involve Blacks and most in Vanvouver involve Asians, in Winnipeg or other cities with high numbers of natives it's the natives doing the killing - and dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the full text of Morgan's Dec 7/05 speech to the Fraser Institute.

Not the speech I would have written to deliver before Milton Friedman, and Morgan's critique of socialism was a little dated (to the 1970s to be precise) for my taste. His ending was prophetic:

Oh boy. Talk about calling a spade a shovel, I think we have dug up enough sacred cows to re-populate the farm I was raised on. And I am sure the political response to my points would provide a lot of the stuff I used to spread on the fields as fertilizer. And after this speech, there is bound to be a lot of vested interests who would like to send me back to the farm.

But my real question is why aren't more leaders in our country digging deep down below the politically correct surface to expose the root causes to the problems facing our country. Whether you are an individual dealing with the challenges and demands holding you back in life, or whether a country hoping to compete on the global stage, your only hope is to realize your full potential. And Canadians have great potential.

It is sad that this guy met this result, and it's sad that some Canadians are still not ready to accept free speech. If you disagree with someone, confront them. But don't silence them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is more along the lines that Morgan, used to dealing with competent business people that actually make rational decisions, was so frustrated by the attacks he chose to return to retirement instead. I doubt if Harper stood down, its not his style. Likely Morgan quit after being relentlessly attacked when he just wanted to do a good job.

Canada's loss, blame your opposition parties.

Actually, what happened was that once again the forces of political correctness and liberal intolerance hve won out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoopster:

We shouldn't stereotype people who collect welfare. Are all of them lazy? No. However, you make the mistake of going to far to understand. *under no circumstances* are they lazy?

No I didn't. In my example, I know of deadbeats that went on welfare before giving up a penny to the ex. Read what I said and you'll see what I mean. You want to think that I'm saying that ALL welfare moms aren't lazy and that ALL Jamaicans aren't criminals.

That usually happens when you scan something and don't bother to understand it, but you are in good company here, so you come by this "scanning" business honestly.

2. Why would you call Gwyn Morgan my *good buddy*?

To piss you off because you defend the guy without understanding what he infers in his speech. If you don't want to be good buddies with Morgan, then I'm sure the buddies who yell racist insults at the Native protestors in Kaledonia would welcome you.

You are making the same mistake Naci Sey made

Probably, but you are making the same mistake dudes like Argus, Scriblett, Canuck E Fool, Argus1991 and a host of others have assuming that I'm a left-winger.

3. Do you even understand the role Morgan was asked to play?

Yep, and its not inconceivable that that people on special programs that are aimed at impoverished Canadians get work for the government in a variety of capacities. What if one of them sees something that goes against departmental policies? What if info they have implicates a Minister? What if the whistleblower has a Jamaican accent? How would Morgan treat this person? We don't know, but seeing what he says about the poor, Jamaicans and indo-Chinese, it makes one wonder.

Additonally, it doesn't give Harper any brownie points for unveiling the face of Reform...you remember them guys, eh? they were great at painting everyone with the same, big brush...just like you do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC:

I find it amazing how easy it is to be painted a racist & a bigot in this pathetic left wing world.

I find it amazing how easy morons can make racist statements and throw their hands up in the air and blame political correctness for their idiocy. I find it even more amazing at how many Right-wing lapdogs these morons generate to come to their defence by trying to obfuscate the argument.

I read an article recently in the western standard

The Western standard? So...how is the 21st Century's version of "Der Speigel" doing?

which basically said, to become left wing the only qualifications you need is ignorance to the truth.

Oh...I tend to think that works both ways. There are many a good moron on the left as on the right. I deal with both all the time, and it's almost funny to see how similar they act, but they can't see it themselves.

"I know this sounds harsh, but... if this was a headline on CBC," Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of Encana Corp, has been nominated by Stephen Harper to chair the public appointments commission. With this job comes the responsibility of overseeing public appointments and bringing down punishment to Jamaican gangs and strip poor single mothers of their welfare status.", wouldn't you be inclined to be against him and the Conservatives ??"

Actually, that is one of the most singularly retarded points I've heard yet...and retarded isn't a politically correct term! Buddy, if Harper had took Morgan aside months ago and told him that, if he was elected PM, he'd get him in as the Ethics Commish, as long as he kept his opinions to himself (which Harper is doing with all the CPC MP's as we speak) then Morgan wouldn't have laid himself open to an attack on his record. If an unopinionated guy who used to run EnCana was put into the Ethics job, then it would be tough to say no.

But a guy who holds a speech at the Fraser and fumbles his explanation about racial profiling looks alot better as a businessman than as a civil servant. Likewise, I don't like this dollar-a-year crap. We should pay whoever goes in an appropriate salary for the role they play. I don't like being given the impression that this guy is "deigning us" with his presence. that's insulting, but you don't seem to mind.

now this is a drastic comment, but it's no worse than branding him for being a racist, like our media has. And because they called him a racist, with the slick job pointing out his connection to "bigoil"(evil people THEY are), the common public automatically dislikes him, Only because of media spin!!

Buddy, this too is a bunch of bullcrap. Some media printed his full speech, and I thought it was even worse than the single-paragraph excerpt from yesterday. The guy might not be a racist, but he sure doesn't know how to say it without painting whiole groups of people as inveterate criminals. Heck, I know that there are plenty of Jamaican criminals, but I also know that the majority of Jamaican-Canadians are anything but. Morgan doesn't. in fact, YOU SHOW ME FROM HIS FULL SPEECH WHERE HE DISCERNS BETWEEN JAMAICANS AS CRIMINALS AND JAMAICANS AS CANADIANS, Mr. "I'm-amazed-at-left-wingers".

If they actually got to know Gwyn Morgan, they would find out he was Pro Kyoto, very environmentally minded, and quite an accomplished man

hey...I know Ahenakew. he's a nice guy. Did a lot for Native folks. and he's still an embarrassing anti-semite that I no longer want anything to do with. So friggin' what? Morgan fell into the same trap, so he faces the same fate.

...and was willing to serve Canada for one dollar a year!!!

I already told you that I'm not fond of this. It sounds condescending.

Yet the media tends to leave out the important stuff and just call him a racist(as many of the lefties who have no idea what his job was supposed to be!).

Oh blah, blah, blah...whine,whine,whine, cry,cry sniff, sob. If you hate the media so much, then just snuggle up to the next issue of The Western Standard and whistle some cowboy tunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC:

I find it amazing how easy it is to be painted a racist & a bigot in this pathetic left wing world.

I find it amazing how easy morons can make racist statements

Yes, well, you've made enough, haven't you.

I read an article recently in the western standard

The Western standard? So...how is the 21st Century's version of "Der Speigel" doing?

Too many big words for you?

Actually, that is one of the most singularly retarded points I've heard yet...and retarded isn't a politically correct term! Buddy, if Harper had took Morgan aside months ago and told him that, if he was elected PM, he'd get him in as the Ethics Commish, as long as he kept his opinions to himself (which Harper is doing with all the CPC MP's as we speak) then Morgan wouldn't have laid himself open to an attack on his record. If an unopinionated guy who used to run EnCana was put into the Ethics job, then it would be tough to say no.

It wasn't an ethics commision. How many times do you have to be told that? Were you a slow learn in class or something?

But a guy who holds a speech at the Fraser and fumbles his explanation about racial profiling looks alot better as a businessman than as a civil servant.

You mean he wasn't a slick bureacratic, politically versed weasel? Gee, how sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knock it off with the personal attacks, this childish attitude is destroying all integrity here. There is an issue to discuss, discuss it. I could care less about either of you.

--

gc1765,

Harper is probably just to to play the upset child for a few weeks, get the public to see that Morgan was a great choice and shame shame the opposition. Then he'll appoint what will likely be another candidate, which the opposition couldn't possible vote down without backlash from the people, no matter what he stood for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gc:

After skimming through all of these posts, it appears that nobody has answered the question....why hasn't harper put forth another candidate for the position instead of giving up altogether?

Good point, and I apologize for my part in this thread getting out of hand. I think that Harper's team is playing excellent politics right now, and totally taking advantage of the fumbling and leaderless Liberals. However, I still don't trust Harper to support him. You see people like Vellacott and now Morgan regurgitating that old Reform/Alliance perspective, and it makes you wonder just how much Harper is suppressing his team.

But still, these machinations don't make up for the Emerson/fortier gaffe. That will come back time and again as the first betrayal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said that you posted something just to "piss me off" plus you antagonize Canuck E Stan and Argus?

What is the motivation for such childish behaviour?

This is freaking outrageous? Why should this guy be able to get away with so flagrantly violating the rules?

Good point, and I apologize for my part in this thread getting out of hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC:

I find it amazing how easy it is to be painted a racist & a bigot in this pathetic left wing world.

I find it amazing how easy morons can make racist statements and throw their hands up in the air and blame political correctness for their idiocy. I find it even more amazing at how many Right-wing lapdogs these morons generate to come to their defence by trying to obfuscate the argument.

I read an article recently in the western standard

The Western standard? So...how is the 21st Century's version of "Der Speigel" doing?

which basically said, to become left wing the only qualifications you need is ignorance to the truth.

Oh...I tend to think that works both ways. There are many a good moron on the left as on the right. I deal with both all the time, and it's almost funny to see how similar they act, but they can't see it themselves.

"I know this sounds harsh, but... if this was a headline on CBC," Gwyn Morgan, former CEO of Encana Corp, has been nominated by Stephen Harper to chair the public appointments commission. With this job comes the responsibility of overseeing public appointments and bringing down punishment to Jamaican gangs and strip poor single mothers of their welfare status.", wouldn't you be inclined to be against him and the Conservatives ??"

Actually, that is one of the most singularly retarded points I've heard yet...and retarded isn't a politically correct term! Buddy, if Harper had took Morgan aside months ago and told him that, if he was elected PM, he'd get him in as the Ethics Commish, as long as he kept his opinions to himself (which Harper is doing with all the CPC MP's as we speak) then Morgan wouldn't have laid himself open to an attack on his record. If an unopinionated guy who used to run EnCana was put into the Ethics job, then it would be tough to say no.

But a guy who holds a speech at the Fraser and fumbles his explanation about racial profiling looks alot better as a businessman than as a civil servant. Likewise, I don't like this dollar-a-year crap. We should pay whoever goes in an appropriate salary for the role they play. I don't like being given the impression that this guy is "deigning us" with his presence. that's insulting, but you don't seem to mind.

now this is a drastic comment, but it's no worse than branding him for being a racist, like our media has. And because they called him a racist, with the slick job pointing out his connection to "bigoil"(evil people THEY are), the common public automatically dislikes him, Only because of media spin!!

Buddy, this too is a bunch of bullcrap. Some media printed his full speech, and I thought it was even worse than the single-paragraph excerpt from yesterday. The guy might not be a racist, but he sure doesn't know how to say it without painting whiole groups of people as inveterate criminals. Heck, I know that there are plenty of Jamaican criminals, but I also know that the majority of Jamaican-Canadians are anything but. Morgan doesn't. in fact, YOU SHOW ME FROM HIS FULL SPEECH WHERE HE DISCERNS BETWEEN JAMAICANS AS CRIMINALS AND JAMAICANS AS CANADIANS, Mr. "I'm-amazed-at-left-wingers".

If they actually got to know Gwyn Morgan, they would find out he was Pro Kyoto, very environmentally minded, and quite an accomplished man

hey...I know Ahenakew. he's a nice guy. Did a lot for Native folks. and he's still an embarrassing anti-semite that I no longer want anything to do with. So friggin' what? Morgan fell into the same trap, so he faces the same fate.

...and was willing to serve Canada for one dollar a year!!!

I already told you that I'm not fond of this. It sounds condescending.

Yet the media tends to leave out the important stuff and just call him a racist(as many of the lefties who have no idea what his job was supposed to be!).

Oh blah, blah, blah...whine,whine,whine, cry,cry sniff, sob. If you hate the media so much, then just snuggle up to the next issue of The Western Standard and whistle some cowboy tunes.

I can honestly say, after reading this, you meet all the requirements of a true hardcore lefty!(ignorance)

Layton should be calling anyday!!

Good luck to you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opposition parties were right in not accepting Gwyn Morgan's appointment to any ethics' role, and not because he was outed as a racist, but because he has been a longtime fundraiser for both the Reform Party and later the CPC. He held a fundraiser for Stephen Harper in this last campaign; and himself has donated thousands including $5,100 on May 26, 2005 (see Elections Canada website.)

Outed as a racist?

In what shape or form do Morgan's comments constitute racism? He questioned the validity of "multiculturalism" and he noted troubling issues about gun crime in Toronto and Calgary. He made no bland generalizations. If we cannot discuss this openly, we will get nowhere in dealing with it. I think a majority of Canadians understand that.

As to the campaign contributions, they were perfectly legal at the time they were made. Are you going to exclude everyone who ever contributed to a political campaign from being named to a government commission? Ed Broadbent, I believe, contributed to the NDP and (heavens!) sat on several government commissions, including one about accountability. In the case of Morgan, we are talking about one commissioner on on commission.

In the case of the Liberals, over 60% of Quebec and Ontario federal judges made contributions to the Liberal Party prior to being named to the bench. Now, you tell me, what is more serious?

There is a big difference between contributing to a party and being an ACTIVE FUNDRAISER for a party. This would simply be another example of partisan politics, something Harper himself has spoken out against. Of course that was then - this is now....flip-flop - oh no... personal growth...that's it.

For him to imply that he cannot put accountability measures in place uness he has a majority only draws attention to the fact that he is trying to put one over on Canadians, so we should make sure that he is never in a position to pull a fast one.

Go NDP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between contributing to a party and being an ACTIVE FUNDRAISER for a party.

You mean like those Quebec lawyers who provided free services to the Liberal Party during elections and were given judges robes in payment?

And, of course, that only happened in Quebec, nowhere else.

Ah, but one mustn't question the integrity of our judiciary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gc:
After skimming through all of these posts, it appears that nobody has answered the question....why hasn't harper put forth another candidate for the position instead of giving up altogether?

Good point, and I apologize for my part in this thread getting out of hand. I think that Harper's team is playing excellent politics right now, and totally taking advantage of the fumbling and leaderless Liberals. However, I still don't trust Harper to support him. You see people like Vellacott and now Morgan regurgitating that old Reform/Alliance perspective, and it makes you wonder just how much Harper is suppressing his team.

But still, these machinations don't make up for the Emerson/fortier gaffe. That will come back time and again as the first betrayal.

TS...I think I'm going to really like reading your posts and hope you stick around for awhile and not be scared off by right-wing rants. I've found most of them are pretty harmless.

However, you speak of former Reform/Alliance and I can assure you that they are anything but former. 55 current CPC MP's belonged to the Reform/Alliance and 55 are new to the CPC, many drawn by the old Reform ideology. Only a handful are tories and three of those Baird, Flaherty ('throw the homeless in jail') and Clements; are outcasts from the scandal ridden Ontario Tories under Mike Harris (who now writes for the Fraser Institute)

My NOCRAP stands for No- Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party; though lately I've changed it to No-Canadian Republican Alliance Party; with Harper following George Bush around like a love sick schoolboy.

However, I understand how you can lose it now and then. I've been there myself. But your arguments are just and reasonable, so soldier on.

As to not naming an alternative to Morgan. It was just another Harper hissy fit. Whenever he gets backed into a corner, he brings up '13 years' or cries, stamps his feet and threatens to leave the schoolyard. aka...showing his true colours.

I too think that Morgan's offer to do the job for $ 1.00 a year, makes us somehow beholden. It's more about insuring that the job goes to a CPC friendly candidate than looking for the best person to fulfill the mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...