As low as possible apparently. In his new position, Poilievre has thankfully been fairly silent sparing we political watchers the pain of witnessing his always offensive performances. Sadly, that silence was broken this week.Pierre once again decided that it was just fine and dandy to lie in House where he of course has protection. He was answering a question put to him by the NDP's Joe Comartin about the Cadman case and specifically about the author of the book on Cadman, Tom Zytaruk. Because Poilievre had made the claim that the tape was tampered with earlier in the week, Comartin asked him for proof, or an apology to Zytaruk. Instead of doing the right thing of course, Poilievre deliberately claimed once again that the tape had been tampered with and went further to say that this had been proven in court.
When Comartin asked him to repeat that comment outside of the House, well the cowardly Mr. Poilievre repeated the charge and snuck out the back way after QP.
Not all, but much of the partisanship that we saw earlier this year has been kept to minimum. I don't believe for a minute that we're dealing with a kinder, gentler form of Conservative. I just think they are taking orders.
Pierre apparently thinks he's above all of that. While his comments were not overtly partisan, they were delivered in that slimy style that he is famous for. His tone and manner make it clear he has no problem further perpetuating this lie that is affecting Zytaruk. In fact, as I've written many times, there seems to be no thought given to how some comments affect the lives of others.
Pierre Poilievre is one politician that scrapes the bottom of the barrel, yet I'm sure few Canadians know who he is. Furthermore, he continuously receives plum little positions that suggest that his behaviour is just A-OK with his boss, Harper.
Zytaruk is thinking about suing, but can't afford it. If you know of someone that might help him in this cause, be sure to tell them that they would be a hero to many if they successfully sued the Conservatives and specifically exposed the cowardly Poilievre for who he is.
15 comments:
It amazes me these are the same people who demonstrated such angst over "poor" Jennifer Wright over the Green Shift name.
Well, actually it does not amaze me at all. The hypocrisy is old news now.
I do not think you are going to be able to find any lawyer take this case on a pro-bono basis. The CPC are taking care to make these comments in the House. At the same time, the media seem to be reporting this as an exposure of CPC lies, so I not sure what kind of strategy they are using here.
I'm not sure there is a strategy Gayle. It strikes me as pent up frustration on being 'curbed' at the moment.
I don't know people in legal circles, so I'll take your word on the likelihood of a lawyer taking this pro-bono. It would be one for the books though!
There is one thing that I don't understand here. If mps can't be sued for what they say in the house than what good is the threat of suing? I'M not making any accusations.I'M just trying to understand how could someone be sued when mps are protected in the house. Please try to stay none partisan! Thank You!
Pierre is representative of the quality Harper can attrack. His education, experience and cerebral level make him a good fit in a group that hasn't a funcking clue where they are let alone what their doing.
But, bullshit baffles brains so we wait until the advertising dollars run out and Harper has to stand on his record. Pierre won't last.
and that's spelled, "attract".
I don't know FttF. I kinda like attrack. It's a cross between attract and attack. Works for me.
Right, that is why Pierre was asked to have the courage to repeat his statements outside the House.
That said though, I'm sure you'll remember that James Moore was not in the House when he held a news conference and there have been numerous MP's on Duffy etc. that made the same allegation.
Knb this brought to mind,I think a liberal mp was once involved in something similar with a hockey player. I don't if you remember,mayber your readers do! I forget who the parties involved are. Does anyone know what ever happened to that case? Thank you! I'm just curious that's all.
You know, it would be worth it to start raising funds for the author.
According to the Commons Report by Aaron Wherry, Harper whispered something to Poilievre before he stood up to answer.
Also, wasn't Poilievere breaking the agreement by saying so much?
Good points Sandi. Going back in time, some of the most caustic comments have come from MP's after Harper whispers something to them. I've seen it with Diane Finley and Van Loan.
As to breaking the agreement, I'd say yes he has, though the protection of the House probably covers him here.
I noticed this story on the CBC crawl this morning so it might just gain some national momentum and therefore support.
Harper just can't help himself - so for image sake he gets on of his bobbleheads to do the nasty for him.
You have to wonder why these MP's let themselves look like fools for his benefit. Do they not have any pride?
No. Obviously some of them really don't or as in Poilievre's case, they're cut from the same cloth. That goes for Finley and Van Loan. In fact, on the front bench there are a few more like that and the back benchers...well even some of the newbies have come out with real zingers and that tells me how they were elected and why they fit in so well.
Others though, specifically Moore, really surprised me. I know he was following orders, but I don't know how he could have compromised himself like that.
That said, I'm only observing from the outside obviously, so who knows what goes on in their minds.
And where are the Liberals following up on this? Why is it that the NDP are standing up to this bullying and lies from Poilievre?
Could it be that the Liberals are no better than the Conservatives in their silence? Most comments seem to indicate that people are shocked, so why aren't the Liberals MPs doing anything....
Cherniak_WTF - where the hell were the NDP in the first place? Why wait until now? Political posturing after the fact. Typical Layton.
c_wtf...seriously? Surely you're not going to level the claim that Mulcair recently uttered?
As I'm sure you are aware, it's not unusual to have parties agree not to discuss a case in circumstances such as this. Would I prefer that the Liberals be able to talk about this? Of course.
The NDP, standing up to the bully? What a joke that is. Suddenly they are concerned with this issue? Pulleze. They dismissed it out of hand when it was front and centre. It didn't suit their needs then but now, well now they find some use for it.
I get that you don't like Ignatieff but it seems as though you are unable to make a comment about any subject these days without throwing a punch to the entire party.
Post a Comment