Pat Martin to Twitterverse: "Fuck You"
November 17, 2011 - 6:15pm
MP Pat Martin unapologetic for F-bomb tweets
Parliamentarians were all atwitter Thursday over Manitoba MP Pat Martin's use of off-colour language in a tweet after the Conservative government ended debate on a bill to implement last spring's federal budget.
Although Twitter demands a judicious use of language with 140 characters per tweet, a few select words appeared on Martin's Twitter feed Wednesday.
"This is a f---ing disgrace ... closure again. And on the Budget! There’s not a democracy in the world that would tolerate this jackboot sh--."
When another tweeter called Martin a "foul mouth socialist," the response was "f--- you."
Later, another critic was invited to "eat my shorts."
Martin was unapologetic Thursday.
"I don't think I owe anybody an apology. It was a genuine sincere expression of frustration and the public should take note: There's something very wrong going on here in Ottawa."
I share Pat's passion - it's the Cons who are pissing people off with their majority arrogance.
God love Pat Martin.
The thread title is misleading...Martin is cussing out the Harpercrites, not the Twitterverse.
I've often been the first to give Pat Martin a hard time (he was my MP for some 10 years), but I stand fully behind him. What I absolutely HATE about the media coverage is that not one report even dared delve into what in the budget pissed him off. Martin is far from a loose cannon so for him to be this pissed off, that budget must stink to high heaven. I wished that would get covered. (Seriously, it must be really bad for his to lose his cool.)
On P&P the Cons tried to make the story about Martin cussing, but Martin stuck to his guns and spoke about why he is pissed off - the Cons bringing in closure on the budget talks.
Again, I say there must be some ugly suff if Martin is so upset about there being closure to the budget talks. What I want to know is what is in the budget that would push him so hard? I think the public deserves to know that over how many cuss words he used.
I think Martin expressed his exac reasons on Twitter. Do you follow on Twitter?
Not normally a Pat Martin fan...he's usually on the right wing of the NDP. But in this case, he's right fucking on!
Has he given budget details on twitter, Boom Boom? I don't subscribe to twitter so I don't know. I do think he is right to be honest in his anger. Like radiorahim, I have not been a fan but I like this.
I don't Twitter so I don't know if he did or not - but I'm sure he expressed on Twitter why he's so upset - the gov't is not allowiing the Opposition to do the jobs they were elected to do, and a full budget debate is one of them.
Too bad he didn't say that instead of voting to bomb Libya.
Too bad he didn't say that instead of voting to bomb Libya.
If I recall correctly, very few MPs did.
Oh, Pat Martin, don't make me have to love you for five minutes! :D
Seriously - this is awesome. Credit where credit is due.
This little incident (and it is after all, very inconsequential) has garnered the NDP more media publicity and airtime than anything else any of their MP's has said since Layton died.
There's a lesson in there, if the NDP is willing to see it.
what lesson? swear frequently?
I think that would get old very quickly
What I love is that he's not backing down and apologizing and grovelling for forgiveness from the media. There's that old joke that a "gaffe" is defined as "a politician accidently telling the truth". I think that about sums up Martin's "gaffe" here.
Though, I'll add that while I loved his original tweet (a rare show of real emotion from a politician), telling some commentator on Twitter to "fuck off" may have been overdoing it. Save your vitriol for Harper, Pat!
Yeah, it's different than when MPs are caught saying inappropriate things, and apologizing when they really mean they were sorry they got caught.
A really good discussion on CBC's P&P and CTV's Power Play yesterday about how the Cons are abusing their majority status and how this diminishes democracy, and all tied in to Pat Martin using his "f-bomb". Good for Pat - he has gotten Canadians involved in the debate over closure.
(cross-posted to the "Closure" thread)
As M. Spector said, this represents an inconsequential outburst at best. The fact that both the left and the right could very well employ a dictionary's worth of profanity to describe Pat Martin, speaks volumns about his effectiveness on anyone's account. As NDPP alluded to, his support of our engagement in the Libyan affair should have us paraphrasing his words, to this effect:
"This is a fucking disgrace"
There's no need for any round of applause here. Why couldn't this asshole spare a few choice words over the innocent bombing victims in Libya, or for his own support of those who created the victims in the first instance.
But why pick on Martin over the Libya issue? It's not as though he was the sole MP voting in favour of the Libya bombing. I think dragging Libya into this thread is drifting. Or maybe a red herring. Aren't there enough Libya threads already open?
Yes, I can understand how bringing up Libya would be a sore point for the NDP, just as its quite understandable that when people come together in song to fete the hero of the moment, reality checks as to the character and track record of the newly minted hero become inconvenient red herrings.
There's either a collective amnesia at work here, or the political standards are so low as to render the ideology of the center left and the center right and onwards as practically interchangeable and indistinguishable.
Pat Martin's movember mustache is outta control
There's a lesson in there, if the NDP is willing to see it.
what lesson? swear frequently?
I think that would get old very quickly
Sorry. I guess that was too big of an "if" on my part.
Do carry on.
I wouldnt assume laine that it is about the content of the Budget.
I think the outrage is about how far they will go to simply dispense with the trappings of democracy. And when that is your day to day world, it hits harder.
Where that anger would touch on the budget's content would be the assumption Martin and others would have that this will now be a subject of debate. But no....
As opposed to any other day, where saying little of anything suffices?
On P&P Martin did say the Cons were doing damage to democracy, but I can't recall the exact words he used. Maybe something along the lines of trying to 'kidnap' democracy. At any rate, he was pissed off because he and others are not able to do the job they were elected to do - which is to hold the government to account.
This is unbelievably puerile. Martin is a clown, at all times. He says anything that comes into his head. Besides Libya, he is one of the two staunchest supporters of the Afghan "mission" in caucus, and rivals Harper in his uncritical support for Israel.
What did he do in his tweet? Express his childish frustration, not on any issue of consequence, but on the Cons shutting down the phony debate on the budget - i.e., the opportunity (generally missed) for the opposition to get some media sound bites, because the conclusion is foregone anyway.
It is also a joke to think that the "closure" issue is one that anyone cares about. We should engage people in talking about the content of the destructive legislation this government is passing. We should find ways (as Brigette DePape keeps telling us) to STOP HARPER, not just or even primarily through parliamentary manoeuvres, but in every walks and aspect of our lives.
Those babblers who despise Martin, but are taking a five-minute break to applaud him for this gesture - I understand them. My reaction was the same, at first. It then occurred to me that the reason I liked the tweet was my own frustration: a) at the steamroller of the Harper government; but far more importantly: b) at the self-serving stupid incompetent leaders of the opposition parties, and their loyal soldiers, who can't even speak the people's minds, let alone do what the people need. This childishness of Martin seemed to puncture that cone of impotence and lies, if only for a moment. But really - it does nothing.
The fact that the MSM seized on it as they did should prove - as I think Spector was trying to say - that the NDP caucus has absolutely nothing earth-shaking or inspiring or innovative to say these days. When an asshole can grab the spotlight, we should look to ourselves and wonder why we can't.
Cross-posted the above with Unionist
I don't think that contempt for parliamentery procedure and practice is a non-issue. If anything, I think that forceful expression of righteous anger grabs the attention of Canadians and their media--what we need is more of this kind of response for everything that is happening in Ottawa these days--Libya, fighter jets, crime bill, prisons, Keystone, etc. Why wouldn't we applaud Martin when he does something right?
Exactly, Catchfire. BTW, I think Martin is the one MP that has worked tirelessly to get asbestos abolished.
ps: thread title is still misleading.
Pat Martin is a shrewd clown. Skating on the edge as he does, of course he doesnt always move the most effective way, even in his own terms.
But he is no fool. And no one's fool.
This was by no means a calculated move on Pat's part. But the reason shrewd people get the opportunity is the same as where other success comes: practice.
And this is why Pat is not reigned in by the party, when people who say less get slapped. [Besides his usefulness, he is shrewd about how to barely stay away from being whacked by his own team. And I'm comparing apples to apples: Peter Stoffer has suffered consequences for strictly speaking doing less than Pat Martin.]
I don't think that contempt for parliamentery procedure and practice is a non-issue. If anything, I think that forceful expression of righteous anger grabs the attention of Canadians and their media--what we need is more of this kind of response for everything that is happening in Ottawa these days--Libya, fighter jets, crime bill, prisons, Keystone, etc. Why wouldn't we applaud Martin when he does something right?
Because it's a flash in the pan. I didn't say this was a "non-issue". I said this is the wrong issue this time. Far huger issues of "parliamentary procedure" - the prorogations (two of them, how soon we forget) and the detainees - where potentially huge movements, demonstrations, indignation, etc. were already underway (in at least one case) - were simply abandoned. No effort by the political representatives to actually engage with them and reflect them in Parliament or outside.
So no, we should not waste our time applauding every act of resistance - especially one like this where lots of ordinary folk will not instinctively be very impressed by Martin's foul mouth. Yes, we need sparks everywhere. But this one is already extinguished.
Oh bunk.
Flash in the pans add up.
And what "wrong issue"? They arent all related? Especially in the hearts and minds of those we need to convince?
Oh bunk.
C'mon Pat, you can do better than that!
Politicians that regularly give Harper a pass on huge crimes and illegality, while bursting out in profanity at Harper using perfectly lawful parliamentary procedures to limit the amount of time they get to strut the stage - are not my heroes. And Pat Martin can eat my shorts if he doesn't like it.
I think this comes down to different people's political instincts as to what constitutes an effective or significant event in Canadian political life. I've given my view, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If you want a good contrast, have a look at what Brigette DePape did, all alone. And she's carrying on, in many ways. That's a spark that a politician could emulate and learn from.
Exactly, Catchfire. BTW, I think Martin is the one MP that has worked tirelessly to get asbestos abolished.
Of course he has. Because it's someone else's crime (Québec), and he has special feelings for Québec - such as his multi-year private member's effort to force BQ members to swear allegiance to Canada or else be deprived of MP funds and privileges:
Then of course, because Gary Doer and his clique were always staunch supporters of Israel and the Afghanistan mission, Pathological Martin was never too too critical of those close to home.
Which is also why "Fuck-You" Martin is still a proud member of the ultra-right CPCCA, you know, the organization that's trying to criminalize criticism of Israel.
I thought about it momentarily, but no, I can't praise this scumbag for his clownish antics. Would you praise his tweets if he were an avowed white racist, or misogynist, or homophobe? "No", I hear you say? Well think it over please.
In other news, Conservative senator Nancy Ruth has told lobbyists - for the second time - to "shut the fuck up" about the abortion issue:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100503/senator-swears-abortion-10...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/feminist-senator-nancy-ruth...
Funny.... the first time it was "It's five weeks to the G8: Shut the fuck up"
This time, regarding what they decided at the G8: "Shut the fuck up and let it play out"
Both articles are from 2010, Smith.
Ah... my mistake. And here I thought she said it twice.
you know, from the distance I view them both...
and this is not new, it just seems like the time to share this...
and reminding that I have always maintained and spoken a respect for Pat Martin even when I also am not liking what he is currently saying and doing.... a general respect that is not shared around here...
but i've always seen a certain similarity in pat martin and unionist.
Come to think of it, who is behind that handle 'unionist' ?
and what was Pat Martin's background before electoral politics?
Hmmmm....
you know, from the distance I view them both...
You view many things from a distance. Light years.
Kautious Ken komes klean...
U. maintains a devout silence while waiting, impatiently, for the shoe to drop...
Wha!!!??? Huh!!!?????
That does it!
Eat my long johns!! @KenS @Pottytalk @avistic
Come to think of it, who is behind that handle 'unionist' ?
and what was Pat Martin's background before electoral politics?
Hmmmm....
ROFLMAO!
Never thunk of that!
He ain't heavy - he's my brother!
Mind you, when Pat was a carpenter, and I was a lady...
(Wasn't Pat with the carpenters' union?)
Me and Pat from the carpenters...
and i was wondering about you, you've never said, so....
There's a lesson in there, if the NDP is willing to see it.
what lesson? swear frequently?
I think that would get old very quickly
Sorry. I guess that was too big of an "if" on my part.
Do carry on.
Yes, if these Harpercrites are just going to ram bills and legislation through Parliament without any debate and lapdog newz on their side, then it's time to start making some noise about it. This is the largest opposition party ever elected to oppose a phony baloney majority government in Ottawa.
You know, I'm actually amazed at the superficiality of political discourse, when Pat Martin, the guy who is one of the biggest apologists for Israeli apartheid, the guy who is one of the biggest supporters of the Afghanistan war in the NDP caucus, who gave that infamous speech regarding socialism as an anchor that needs to be ditched at that NDP convention, and quite possibly the most right-wing member of the federal NDP caucus, all of the sudden turns into this awesome left-wing firebrand simply because he uses the f-word on twitter.
I mean, honestly, do we have a collective memory of five minutes or what?
and again, their unanimous support of NATO's war and regime change in Libya is about as "jackboot shit" as you can get..
Amazement seems to have been done in by the tedious repetition it employs to explain the inexplicable.
Oh for heaven's sake. No One is being asked to overlook Martin's history of right wing conservatism, but when he gets it right, as in this Twitter episode and in his long fight against asbestos, I have no hesitation to give credit when credit is due.
MP Pat Martin's vulgarity worked
excerpt:
The prime minister gave way, likely because Martin's vulgar tweets made Canadians pay attention to what's going on in Parliament.
That was wise. The Conservatives won the election in spite of concerted opposition attacks on them for having been found to be in contempt of Parliament, so they have a mandate to be a bit brusque with Parliament, but if they push it too far, we will have government by executive fiat.
Yeah, Pat Martin saying "fuck" and "shit" worked really well. The Cons said to themselves: "Really? Can it really be that cheap???" And they gave the so-called "opposition" two extra days next week to discuss the bill.
Victory for the People! Yay Pat Martin! Parliamentary Democracy is back! Yay Stephen Harper!
What next... lemme see... Oh, I know:
"Harper didn't throw us any crumb this month. What's with this Hitlerite Jackboot Shit? Fascist fucking thugs!" [I think that's 109 characters, should fit into a tweet?]
There's room for thirty-one characters-or at least seven more "fucks"-and they'd be even MORE effective if they were randomly inserted in the midst of the existing text.
Like this, for example:
"Harper didn't fuckthrow us any fuckcrumb this fuckmonth. What's with this Hitlerfuckite Jackboot fuckshit? Fascist fucking fuckthugs!"
That's prime ministerial material if ever I heard it.
Umm, check your math pal.
I changed "fucks" to "characters". Does it fit as amended?
Pat Martin comes from the UBCJ. I was a union brother until the BC Carpenters broke away from the UBCJ. As for union brothers I always preferred the BC Carpenter's Bill Zander's politics to Pat Martin's. I kept my union card until I retired although the last time I worked the tools was in '92. I have always thought Pat was a right wing jerk. Just because he tweets like a construction worker doesn't give me any cause to change my view of him. On occasion I talk and write like a construction worker myself. Its a cultural thing.
Jeez, in that case you musta thought Canada was a fascist dictatorship under the Liberals from 1993 t0 2005?
Oh for heaven's sake. No One is being asked to overlook Martin's history of right wing conservatism, but when he gets it right, as in this Twitter episode and in his long fight against asbestos, I have no hesitation to give credit when credit is due.
Sorry, when I made that comment I had a lot of things on my mind beyond just rabble discussions. Some people who I have talked to over the past few days who have previously been highly critical of Pat Martin seemed to have been going on about how awesome they think Pat Martin is in general, and minimizing serious, substantive issues (such as his support for Israeli apartheid, or his notion that socialism needs to be cut out of the NDP) in favour of "Pat Martin is awesome because he said fuck on twitter"
Okay, it might have been cool and refreshing to see a politician show some emotion and be a little agressive and not apologize for it, and a nice change of pace from the nomally dry, sanitized messaging that comes out of media professionals. But I think it's important to have a reality check before issuing blanket praises of someone for something this inconsequential.
After all, I'm sure anyone who said on babble about a similarly named politician "Paul Martin is awesome because he supports the Occupy movement" would get straightened out rather quickly!
That's alright, we've become used to rabid anti-NDP rhetoric.
And so now that the federal NDP is no longer a fourth or even third party in Ottawa, the NDP's loyal "fan" base should demand pay raises as former fourth rate critics of the party bumped up to second place. That has to be worth something.
Must everything be viewed through the lense of capital with the NDP?
And anyway, does Pat Martin even know what jackboot shit looks like? I mean, this is a week where the streets have witnessed the bloody cracked heads of young students and the pepper sprayed gasps of the elderly alike. Referring to the goings on at those tea and crumpet sessions on Parliament hill as jackboot shit only confirms straight out of the horse's mouth how far detached from reality Pat Martin is.
I've often been the first to give Pat Martin a hard time (he was my MP for some 10 years), but I stand fully behind him. What I absolutely HATE about the media coverage is that not one report even dared delve into what in the budget pissed him off. Martin is far from a loose cannon so for him to be this pissed off, that budget must stink to high heaven. I wished that would get covered. (Seriously, it must be really bad for his to lose his cool.)
For a while there (post #4) this thread looked to be developing relevancy, possibly a discussion meaningful to the Great...Mainstreet, people with jobs. The media person, laine lowe put a finger right on the questions that should be given attention: what is there in that critical budget that demands scrutiny, and look at the dismissive media, not ready to anger Harper and his henchmen.
Enter egos, ideology and potty humour. Wow!
Referring to the goings on at those tea and crumpet sessions on Parliament hill as jackboot shit only confirms straight out of the horse's mouth how far detached from reality Pat Martin is.
That's probably the most relevant assessment of this tempest in a teapot, which the MSM and some discouraged leftists are trying to paint as a great blow against tyranny.
Ok - but since Pat's twitter privileges are intact, has he calmed down enough to tell us what's so bad in the budget and how people should get organized to fight it?
quote: "Ok - but since Pat's twitter privileges are intact, has he calmed down enough to tell us what's so bad in the budget and how people should get organized to fight it?"
Can't happen on Twitter. Where does he explain ?
Can't happen on Twitter. Where does he explain ?
Twitter is either for extremely gifted haiku writers or idiots who don't want to engage in substantive debate. The answer to your question is Pat Martin's website. That would be a place where he could have a serious debate about the budget's failings. Instead he has a piece about how the NDP should merge with the Liberals.
Pat Martin has chosen to discuss serious economic policy issues on Twitter without any in depth writing on his home page. Cheap politics is all that I see.
http://www.patmartin.ca/
The Budget closure business is "just" the last straw. You all are overthinking to bring in what Pat Martin does not say economics.
Every MP expests at a minimum that the public will hear some debate.
Blowing at the last straw is not nothing.
Its only a failed tempest in your preferred teapots.
Jeez, in that case you musta thought Canada was a fascist dictatorship under the Liberals from 1993 t0 2005?
I am not sure whether that is a logical conclusion. It means I despised those Liberal govenrments and I always felt Martin would have fit nicely into that party. But since he is from Manitoba and the UBCJ he joined the "Manitoban Natural Ruling Party" not the Liberals aho are the natural governing party in other parts of the country.
In unions there are also left wing and right wing factions and Pat Martin in the UBCJ has always been aligned with the US dominated International led by McCarron. In BC the internationals top down anti-democratic attitude led to the BC Carpenters breaking away from the UBCJ. I think the UBCJ website says it all about McCarron as they brag about his business crecentials.
Pat Martin is a right wing jerk both as an MP and a UBCJ trade unionist.
In politics, he has sought to expand the union’s outreach to the leaders of both the Democratic and Republican parties.
His foresight, vision, and leadership style have led industry leaders and national publications such as Business Week to refer to McCarron as a “new breed of labor leader.”
http://www.carpenters.org/Leadership_top_nav/Leadership_McCarron.aspx
The answer may be found in the authoritarian leadership of the 550,000-member UBCJ’s General President Douglas McCarron. Over the last ten years McCarron has remade the union into a conservative, anti-democratic, increasingly corporatized, willing and repressive tool of capital.
Today the UBCJ reflects the values of corporate America. In a Business Week article from the late 1990s, McCarron referred to carpenter’s union members as his “strong product.” “We have a product to deliver,” he said “and we have to do it more efficiently.” He has sought to position his “product” in the labor market by pitting worker against worker, pursuing growth at all costs, and replacing rank and file unionism with an authoritarian administrative structure.
McCarron has purged the union of dissidents, expelled political opponents and placed disloyal unions in trusteeship. He has removed rank and file carpenters from leadership positions within the union and replaced them with business agents who have never worked as carpenters. He has learned his corporate lessons well.
The changes under McCarron’s watch began almost immediately following his election to General President. In 1996 McCarron purged the entire leadership of the New York District Council. He shut down locals and merged District Councils in Michigan, California, Nevada, New England, Pennsylvania and New Jersey into new administrative arrangements under his direct control.
Does anyone visit politicians' webpages anymore? I don't think this is an accurate characterization of where things happen on the internet.
It would be easy, if Pat Martin were Kady O'Malley, to explain exactly, and in detail, what was wrong with the budget and parliamentary process. My problem with this issue is that I don't see why our choices have to be "ignore or condemn everything that comes out of Pat Martin's mouth" or "Raise up the good Pat Martin as our parliamentary messiah."
Why can't our reaction simply be: "Well said, sir. Next!"
Why can't our reaction simply be: "Well said, sir. Next!"
Indeed.
I don't think there are too many of us here who agree on everything. It's a bit more productive to focus on points of agreement rather than our inevitable divisions.
I wish we could get a quarter of that passion out of Turmel.
Why can't our reaction simply be: "Well said, sir. Next!"
Indeed. I don't think there are too many of us here who agree on everything. It's a bit more productive to focus on points of agreement rather than our inevitable divisions.
I guess one would have to agree it was well said. Catchfire you often decry the use of fascist references so why is this stupid "jackboot" comment an example of a "well said" statement. I would have agreed if he was referring to the treatment of the hundreds detained in Toronto in actual "jackboot" conditions during G20 but I guess those tweets were not well reported.
Well sorry. I don't think any of us can be all things to all people .
I don't imagine Pat Martin is the new herald of the left, but I am glad that he didn't back down when called on his language, and deflected the criticism in the direction it properly belongs.
In that, I think it is a good move on his part. A politician more concerned about his public image and career might have backed down.
In a similar vein, and by way of comparison, would I be throwing gasoline on the conversation if I say I still consider Margret Atwood an ally on issues of the environment, womens' issues, and freedom of expression? And she knows how to turn a phrase, too.
Again. maybe I'm not looking at the big picture, but sometimes trying to bring in everything is the perfect strategy for getting stuck in the mud and accomplishing nothing.
rah rah Pat Martin.
I really don't give a flying fuck about his language in those tweets. I found the jackboot reference coming from him about an issue in parliament to be less then "well said." Certainly just swearing can't be a reason to jump on his bandwagon and praise him for it.
Hell if I told 6079 or Catchfire FUCK YOU in response to something they had posted I would be suspended or at least be given a disciplinary warning from one of the moderators.
But lets go with the babble theme. rah rah NDP
Pat Martin says the f word so fucking what? Who the fuck cares? Maybe he should try using a different medium if he wants to make a point about the budget process. Tweeting is just a silly fad that will go stale quicker than you can say "Classmates."
It's not the epithet, NS.
It is the fact that he correctly turned a criticism into an opportunity, and refused to back down on a small point when there are a far greater issue at stake.
The right wing have been on to that strategy for ages now. It is about time that those who oppose them start doing the same. In that, I think this is a very good step for Martin to take, and one that others would do well to follow.
I think we can learn a lot by contrasting the courageous defiant act of Brigette DePape and the cheap risk-free theatrics of Pat Martin. I'm with DePape and against Martin. Obviously, some others will take the opposite stand.
Brave, yes.
Effective, no.
if Layton had come out in support of her protest I think it would have been a foolish waste of his political capital and made him look like an amateur.
I know there are a number of people here who disagree with me, but I think we are still fortunate enough to have a system which we can work to repair and change, but part of the deal is respecting it as much as one can.
As I said, I don't think her act was wrong, but I think it is a shame (and a sign of a failure in our system) that she was driven to break the rules.
Sorry... I know it's a noble act, and I don't want to rain too much on the sentiments in this thread that it is s fine example of nonviolent protest, but I think anytime when circumstances force someone to sacrifice themselves, or when they feel compelled to disrupt the government in order to be heard, I see it as a sign of failure on our part.
You can use my name, Unionist, because I believe some (if not all) of those quotes are mine.
I don't think I said anywhere that I think she should not have done what she did, because inevitably people are going to do what they feel compelled to do in order to take a stand.
But I should point out my comments about that situation were in defense of those who voiced the opinion that it was a breach of protocol - something I happen to agree with. And there is a good reason why those who play by the rules of parliament need to be consistent about that, regardless of their feelings about the issues.
Beyond that, I am not sure at all what your point is.
But I should point out my comments about that situation were in defense of those who voiced the opinion that it was a breach of protocol - something I happen to agree with. And there is a good reason why those who play by the rules of parliament need to be consistent about that, regardless of their feelings about the issues.
So a Page holding up a sign that says STOP HARPER is a serious breach of protocol and shows an immature understanding of our political traditions but an MP in a public forum telling a citizen FUCK YOU is a strategy to be praised for not backing down.
How about in the House? Should Martin tell the Conservatives to fuck off and call them fascists? Is that what the NDP caucus should be doing with its time and resources?
To me this merely shows Martin is foul mouthed and doesn't back down. I've known that for years and still don't like him so I see little reason to praise him. It was the praise from people who often urge restraint in language and rhetoric for the left wing members of the NDP that led to my posting.
Imagine if someone in the caucus tweeted about the "jackboot" Israelis in relation to the atrocity of the week committed by the IDF.
NS
There are rules of protocol in the house, otherwise it does not function, and a different set of rules outside of it.
In that other incident, someone who was not a member broke those rules as an act of protest.
I'll ignore your spin, given that I made no accusation of immaturity (and in fact made no criticism whatsoever ofMs. DePape's action) .
That aside, there isn't too much I can say about your comment. You are entitled to your opinion
So a Page holding up a sign that says STOP HARPER is a serious breach of protocol and shows an immature understanding of our political traditions but an MP in a public forum telling a citizen FUCK YOU is a strategy to be praised for not backing down.
How about in the House? Should Martin tell the Conservatives to fuck off and call them fascists? Is that what the NDP caucus should be doing with its time and resources?
To me this merely shows Martin is foul mouthed and doesn't back down. I've known that for years and still don't like him so I see little reason to praise him. It was the praise from people who often urge restraint in language and rhetoric for the left wing members of the NDP that led to my posting.
Imagine if someone in the caucus tweeted about the "jackboot" Israelis in relation to the atrocity of the week committed by the IDF.
Precisely. Exactly.
Catchfire, are you reading this still? Do you understand why someone would not simply say, "Great stuff, Pat! Well crafted!!"? Do you know that real live working folks don't like their political representatives throwing petty potty-mouthed tantrums, especially as a declaration of their own political impotence?
Yes, I'm reading. I allowed myself a giggle at your archive pull. I thought it was telling. Then things got aggressive again and I got turned off.
I'm just not much of a binary thinker. I loved what Brigette did. I like what Pat Martin did. I still love what Brigette is doing. Let's say that Pat Martin has a long way to go. I don't think a well-meant guffaw of affirmation means "rah rah Pat Martin" or whatever. I also don't think it warrants much defending, which could explain the direction this thread has taken.
http://twitter.com/#!/PatMartinMP/status/136955498846109696
I think the "jackboot shit" is over the top and doesn't serve the context well. I also agree that Martin should be more pro-active about his concerns with Parliament needing adequate time to review the budget and OTHER legislation.
It feels like we are powerless at this point. The opposition has been more or less muzzled. The media just produces puff pieces, regurgitating Harper Conservative speaking points. And public objections (petitions, letters, phone calls) are just ignored. But fuck you is a very visceral response that I can relate to - I'm sure I scream it at my radio or TV at least once a day.
But fuck you is a very visceral response that I can relate to - I'm sure I scream it at my radio or TV at least once a day.
Exactly, and that's why it connected with so many.
It's called individual desperation, an overwhelming feeling of impotence. Brigette DePape's silent act of civil disobedience was, rather, a call to action. And she doesn't support Israeli crimes or the bombing of Libya or the exclusion of Québec nationalists from taking their elected seat in the House.
Pat Martin called the perfectly legal limitation of parliamentary debate "jackboot shit". Brigette figured out, at a tender age, that "Real power is in the streets. Real power is not in Parliament." And contrary to some of the old-fashioned babblers who scolded her, she continued her activism after sacrificing her job and continues it to this day.
We should not be applauding this foul-mouthed chauvinist and friend of imperialism - no more than we would applaud some neo-Nazi who stood his ground and defended his right to (name your sacred right). We should be working out ways to root out all such toxic elements from progressive parties and movements. Space in politics is limited, and we need to free some up for the Brigettes.
[edited]
Geez Unionist, why the over-the-top prose? I think the Oscar nominations were announced last week, so you missed the deadline. And if you were hoping to get in the documentary category, sorry, but think your work is more suited to historical fiction.
If you are going to drag another thread into this one and make slurs then maybe you should at least get the context correct. I said nothing against DePape's decision to protest, nor the issues she raised. My comments were directed at those who thought the NDP opposition should have rallied to her side and said she did the right thing by interrupting the throne speech. Sorry, but it would have been a stupid and amateurish move on their part.
Really, I'm not sure what your point is, because I stand by all of those quotes you pulled. I'm just a little confused as to what they have to do with the topic of this thread.
Are you seriously trying to equate an online post (even one made from the house) with a breach of parliament? I think I'd wait to hear a speaker's ruling on that one. I don't think his initial posts were the issue (and I don't think this whole situation is even that big an issue at all - certainly not on the order of the protest that DePape made). I read in another article, he said he was out of line for telling someone to fuck off, which was the right response, IMO.
I just like the fact that he didn't back down on his expression of frustration with the government, and that he turned it into an opportunity to reveal the level of obstruction by the Harper government that the public may not be aware of. It brings the situation into the news in a way that simply reporting on yet another motion of closure does not.
I also think the support voiced in that CBC article by other members, including a Liberal, is some validation of his comments.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1088370--ndp-mp-pat-...
And getting "Mr A" Tom Lukiwski to chide him on his language? If nothing else that was worth the price of admission.
And space on earth is limited? Really?
So,
an MP gets pissed off at yet more Harper excesses, like people here, and flips the bird.
People laugh and get a kick out of it, you'd think that wouldbe the end of it.
But this is Babble, so we get 'but that doesnt change anything about who he is'. So ???
As if that wasnt enough, we get long excursis on what would have better and the politics of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.
Yeah, it does get excessive here, occasionally. I think I may take a break from this place because it's getting so repetitive, and I've got too much other work to do to bother with it all. See you all in the new year.
We seem to have clearly underestimated Comrade Martin's appeal. I didn't think any praise was due to Sarkozy and Obama for calling Netanyahu a liar either. Speaking the truth for once from an entire retinue of accompanying falsehoods, or idiocies in Martin's case, doesn't turn someone into an ally.
Gee. I missed that, someone saying that this shows we are mistaken about Martin and he's an ally.
Continued use of closure or prorogueing is "jackboot shit" regardless of whether or not it is legal, Unionist. Pat Martin is not my favourite New Democrat by a long shot but in this particular case he did a good job of naming Harper's behaviour.
Continuse of closure or proroueing is "jackboot shit" regardless of whether or not it is legal, Unionist.
Yeah, Caissa, and I don't think you'll find me defending Harper much in these pages. My point was that Martin doesn't get this upset about actual violations of parliamentary rules (e.g. contempt), when it interferes with his ass-kissing on Afghanistan. It was to show the hypocrisy of Martin's schoolyard "indignation". Get my point now?
Would you support his getting up in the House and repeating it - and "sticking to his guns" (as some babblers have praised him for doing)?
Or how about repeating it in front of a camera, so that his caricature of how workers talk can be immortalized on Youtube?
Do you think his party's leader should publicly support his behaviour (haven't heard her do so yet)?
What about the candidates for leadership? Where do they stand?
I think Slumberjack's point was very well taken. We don't praise Sarkozy and Obama for calling Netanyahu a liar. We wonder, rather, why they continue to facilitate his crimes against humanity.
I get your point, Unionist; I just don't share your indignation.
I'd be amused if he did it in the House.
I'm not sure why Pat martin would become a caricature of a worker?
The party leader criticized him I believe. I'd rather she had remained silent.
Frankly, ot an issue leadership candidates need to take a stance on.
I praise Sarkozy and Obama for calling Netanyahu a liar. Sometimes the truth needs to be spoken however undiplomatic. Like you, I wish their actions would reflect their statement.
Unionist, I think he could get a top hat and cane and perform it with fancy dance steps and you still wouldn't like it because you don't like other things which he has done (which is fine, and which I don't think any of us is denying, contrary to claims). So why even try to set some bar that you imply would make it meet a standard you would accept? You don't accept it.
The fact is it was not a planned action; he lost his temper in an internet post. That to me is not important.What is significant is how he and others dealt with it.
And Turmel said his words were inappropriate and could be offensive to some, but that the Harper govnerment's actions were offensive to all Canadians. I can live with that assessment.
Yeah, it does get excessive here, occasionally. I think I may take a break from this place because it's getting so repetitive, and I've got too much other work to do to bother with it all. See you all in the new year.
Aww, Boom Boom, don't jet! These people just can't help themselves. Take a break if you need to, of course, but hurry back. The fledging disability forum needs you!
Santa?...is that you?
How many times have Sarkozy and Netanyahu used closure in their respective Parliaments in order to shut-down democratic debate?
This is a phony-baloney majority government acting as if they still have a minority. They are governing by fear. They fear the official opposition NDP, the impotent political opposition in your words, and the Harpers are acting dictatorially because they fear the opposition NDP even though the official opposition is pre-occupied by leadership campaigns. Jack died, remember? That is no one's fault. Leadership campaigns take time - there are no shortcuts when it comes to the democratic process.
So Harper is governing out of fear and by decree, even though he has his long sought-after phony-balogna majority. How many times did Diefenbaker or lyin' Brian use closure to avoid democratic debates in Parliament?
This is a weak government still. They may be propped-up by lots of Bay Street money, but they have no leader. Harper is not clever, and Harper is not another Diefenbaker or even Brian Mulroney reduced to a two-seat majority by 1989. I think even Mulroney had more going for him by then, even though that government was hovering around 9% in the polls at times. Harper is going to have to pray for an economic miracle. And it won't be happening for this Tory government. The ideology is hopelessly broken this time.
Harper is a dictator who doesn't deserve any respect.
Actually, Fidel, this government is using closure in an attempt to prove to their followers that majority government is more effective than minority government. That's a tough sell - because for 5 years, with the most chickenshit opposition parties in recorded history, Harper was able to do absolutely anything he wanted. So, with closure, he can prove to his Neanderthal base that it's still possible to outwit the impotent so-called opposition - only faster.
And that's why the Pat Martins of this world are reduced to swearing. They really are no good for anything else.
Harper is borrowing against any good will toward the government that might exist far too early before they've even created a Mulroney-style wedge issue to save their asses in the next election.
The NDP hasn't begun to take swipes at them, and the Harpers are already in retreat. That's a sign of weakness.
Meanwhile there are Canadians out there on the streets talking about unemployment and worrying about their jobs and pensions. Herr Harper is nowhere to be found. He's hiding from the democratic opposition and Canadian people. Again, this is a sign of weakness not strength. Harper can only lose political capital within and outside his fragile uber-majority between now and 2015 with this tack.
Harper is no Fidel Ruiz Castro. If he wants to be a strong leader, he has to get out there and have heart-to-hearts in open air talks with the people not dictating things to them like he's doing now.
Harper is just a dictator full stop. He doesn't deserve any respect from the democratic opposition or thousands of ordinary Canadians already out on the streets and protesting what is the end result of decades' worth of political impotence in Ottawa. This is not 1988 with room for political maneuvering.
It's 2011, and the neoliberalorama is hopelessly broken and requiring real leadership to fix things. Harper is the wrong guy for that job. Harper's brain was sucked clean out of his head by right wing think tanks, the fossil fuel industry and Bay Street bond salesmen long ago. The parasites are controlling everything he says and does, and that's Harper's problem right now. He needs to find his own political will to lead not take instructions from Bay St. and the handful few money people controlling him since 2006. Central decision making in the hands of a tiny elite few is typically problematic. And unless the Harpers are up front and honest with the people, their 24% of eligible voter support will only spiral from now to 2015. It's as if he doesn't care about his legacy - he's just in there to do a job for the oil companies and rich people in general. The party will get rid of him at some point like they did Mulroney.
Gotta agree with everything you said there, Fidel.
Martin was even wrong in his political analysis. This is what happens in REAL DEMOCRACIES when the banks want their way. Closure is a legal and traditional method of limiting debate that Harper is using in situations for convenience. In places like Greece and Italy as their democracies implode from bankers demands they don't use closure. They just fire the politicians.
Greece's new technocratic government, appointed earlier this month after political turmoil led to the resignation of the Socialist prime minister, is negotiating the details of a second international bailout, worth €130 billion ($175 billion). It includes provisions for banks and other private holders of Greek bonds to write off 50 per cent of their Greek debt holdings — potentially cutting the country's debt by €100 billion ($135 billion).
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/58312--greek-workers-to-hold-first-major-strike-under-new-interim-technocratic-government
Mr Monti took on the economy and finance portfolio himself.
Corrado Passera, CEO of the Intesa Sanpaolo banking group, was named to head the new ministry of development, infrastructure and transport.
Another key appointment was that of Antonio Catricala, head of the anti-trust authority, who was made under-secretary to the prime minister's office.
Despite reports that Mr Monti had sought to include politicians in his cabinet, there are none.
"The absence of political personalities in the government will help rather than hinder a solid base of support for the government in parliament and in the political parties because it will remove one ground for disagreement," he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15751179
@ NS #98
Well using the unelected senate to quash a bill passed by the elected house is also perfectly legal. For that matter, without resorting to Godwinisms, some of the most horrific acts in history were also perfectly legal and put in place by democratic means.
So technically Martin is Incorrect. Democracies commit all sorts of horrible acts. So many, in fact that many people (also incorrectly) refer to some of them as fascist.
I think we all resort to hyperbolae and tropes in order to get across points about how things SHOULD be. Is that a failure in political analysis, or simply contrasting ideals with reality?
Because if we are going to hold everyone's analysis to the standard of how people act and things play out in the real world, I am afraid there are a number of intelligent and valued commentators who are far more out to lunch than Mr. Martin.
(edit)
Though reading it again, was he refering to the technical point of closure, or the relentless heavy-handed approach of the Harper government? His words in the CBC article seem to imply he is talking about the latter, and this is just one symptom of a greater malady.
I don't believe that will stand up to scrutiny.
Besides being a loudmouth reactionary, Martin is also a petty gossip and an ignoramus. That's why bottom-feeding "journalist" Tim Naumetz can't write a story without quoting Pat Martin. Like, do you remember the voting alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc in the House last year? Neither do I. Another of Naumetz's Martin-inspired "scoops" that went nowhere.
No, I think you'll have a hard time beating Pat Martin on the "out to lunch" scale.
Nice try Unionist, but....
How about commenting on my actual point rather than cutting sentences in half in order to make it seem like I was saying something else?
In case you didn't get it the first time, this is what I said: People often speak in terms of how things should be rather than how they have been, and how they are. I am just saying that is perfectly valid.
I hope you don't have a problem with that.
Let's see what Mr. Potty Mouth has to say about this closure.