Are you against unreasonable intrusion into your private information by authorities? Of course you are. Unless you voted for the Conservative party of Canada, in which case, apparently you truly believe that the police should be able to do what they want whenever they want without any oversight or rules. Simply because it's JUST SO HARD to police the internet with all those megabytes and twitters and gigahertz out there. They want to be able to spy on citizens without the need for obtaining a warrant.. and if you're against it, it must be because YOU SUPPORT PEDOPHILES. That's what Vic Toews said yesterday, when the bill was introduced into parliament. That's one of the first things he said. You're either with them, or a pedophile supporter. That is the level of discourse the Conservative Party of Canada is at now that they have a majority. This is what you people voted for. Nice work, idiots.
So someone on twitter known as vikileaks30 decided that Vic Toews wants our private information so badly, maybe his private information should be released as well. And it's brilliant. A man who represents the Mennonite communities in Steinbach and such seems to have court documents that basically state he is an adulterer, and of course he paid a fine for election fraud... what does that make him? A fraudster? I don't know.
We have at least 3 more years of this nonsense. As regular readers note, I voted NDP. The NDP have many problems, but I somehow doubt they'd sell out our freedoms to the creation of a fascistic police state. The Conservatives are not a real party. They're a caricature of what Conservatism should be. That much is apparent to me. The Liberals were corrupt, but at least they were sensible and didn't waste our tax dollars and give tax breaks to the rich the way the Conservatives clearly are. I am simply disgusted in the Conservatives, and their naive supporters.
9 comments:
How old was the babysitter in question?
Hey now.
He didn't say you'd support pedophiles if you opposed the bill.
He said you'd support child pornographers.
It's an important distinction. ;)
As long as I can still get my nekkid (adult)ladies on the nets! Am I right?
Anonymous: Good point. Let the record state that he did not say Pedophiles, but Child Pornographers.
Purple Rod: Apparently in her early 20's, still have his age and still reprehensible action from somebody who represents a supposedly religious and conservative community.
What a hypocritical piece of garbage. Yes, you either support the government all the way or you're a pedophile.
if she is in her early 20's now, and this happened in 2008 (when the divorce was filed) that would likely put her in her late teens. I somehow doubt that this... "relationship" started and was discovered over the course of a few weeks (divorce can take a while, and it was completed in 2008) so I would imagine she was probably in the "barely legal" category.
Barely legal indeed...
And at the time Vic was in his MID 50's!!!!
Against the law or not, you try to tell me that a 55 year old man seducing a 16 year old girl isn't paedophilia?
The man is a monster
Anonymous said...
Barely legal indeed...
And at the time Vic was in his MID 50's!!!!
Against the law or not, you try to tell me that a 55 year old man seducing a 16 year old girl isn't paedophilia?
I suggest you look up paedophilia and ephebophilia. Take this post as the dictionary trying to tell you it isn't. The fact that he acted on such impulses illustrates that you might not want to employ him in jobs requiring judgment. The fact that he got the girl pregnant shows again a certain lack of judgment and foresight. The lack of foresight might not be a good trait in a person responsible for making decisions that affect the future others.
On the other hand, it may not have a been a lack judgment or foresight. The girl may have taken advantage of the poor man.
Even if she "took advantage of this poor man", it shows horrendous lack of judgement and foresight. If she was in her late teens and he was over 50 and married, then he is an idiot that should be removed from any position of power, judgement or responsibility. He certainly shouldn't be the federal spokesman for justice, and especially anything mixing sex and age. Leaving him in that position shows extremely poor judgement and leadership by the PM.
Post a Comment