that there are idiots in every party. On the plus side (for the Conservatives) is that I pay a lot of attention to politics I could not pick MP Maurice Vellacott out of a lineup. I am pretty sure that over 95% of Canadians have never heard of the guy. Perhaps he should go back under his rock so he can be forgettable again.
Update: Apparently I needed to be more clear. Here is my clarification found in the comments. But adding a clarification makes think of Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes....
People please. If you were offended that Dr. Bennett implied that kids raised by parents are destined for prison then you should be offended by Vellacott saying that McLachlin thinks she has “god-like” powers. Criticize the Supreme Court all you want, as long as you keep in the realm of rational.
Communications matter - especially for the CPC early on. People are dying to point to the “hidden agenda” and a stupid way of making an argument handed it to those people on a silver platter.
Update II: Well that is over and done with. Can we move on now.
Comments (19)
Go to SDA, yesterday Kate linked to Black Rod, on it he goes through a speech McLachlin gave in NZ. Vellacott’s statement about the supreme court is not far off.
Vellacott has been a little much in the past but he’s not far off on this one.
Posted by Keith | May 9, 2006 2:26 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 14:26
You’re way off the mark on this one, all right. Vellacott did not purport to quote her verbatim, and it is simply dishonest of her to pretend otherwise. His paraphrase of her beliefs is shorter, pithier, and a good deal more honest than she might like, but it is plainly correct. She has expressed these views repeatedly. If she’s denying them now, as I’m told she’s doing in the Toronto Star, she’s flat-out lying. Would she do that, you think, if she didn’t recognize how completely unacceptable her views really are?
Posted by ebt | May 9, 2006 2:53 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 14:53
McLachlin does in fact have very disturbing views on the interpretation of the Constitution.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | May 9, 2006 3:32 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 15:32
Sorry you are way off on this one. I have read and heard the remarks that Beverly McLachlin made and I was horrified to think that a member of our supreme court had such beliefs.It made it perfectly clear to me why we have had such country destroying decisions coming from them. They do truly feel that they have some kind of second sight and more wisdom than the people they are making these rulings over. They are using the court to move society into the direction THEY think we should go. It is time someone brought this into the open.
Posted by eliza | May 9, 2006 3:47 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 15:47
If you read the interview of Beverly McLachlin in the April 24 edition of the Western Standard, you would find out that he paraphrased what she actually said.
Posted by anonymous | May 9, 2006 4:13 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 16:13
Bottom line to me is not the veracity of his statements, they are accurate. Telling your girlfriend that she needs to pluck the hairs out of that disgusting mole, might be truthful, but inadvisable.
Bottom line he is a politician in a minority government and definitely should be cautious talking to a CBC reporter. That’s what makes him an idiot.
I seriously doubt that the PMO’s office vetted this. If it did then it’s time to bring out the big guns on the MSM.
Posted by Mark Ferguson | May 9, 2006 4:32 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 16:32
To say that she thinks she has god-like powers is a stupid thing to say. If you have a problem with judicial over-reach say you have a problem with judicial over-reach.
Politicians really need to learn to keep their rhetoric in check because too often they fly off at the mouth and look like fools.
Simple, rationale, well thought out statements will not get you in trouble. Imbellishing to make a point will.
Posted by Greg Staples | May 9, 2006 5:56 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 17:56
I agree thay Vellacott’s sin was in challenging someone where he was outside his expertise and couldn’t win. Otherwise, his statement was a fair representation of McLachlin’s position.
Posted by Jim | May 9, 2006 7:06 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 19:06
“Perhaps he should go back under his rock so he can be forgettable again.”
You better watch where you step Greg. Many people in the party feel the same way as Vellacott does on the arrogance of the Supreme Court. You’re out the mainstream of the party when you say that he should “go back under his rock.” I was kind of miffed when I read that. You should know that most of the party members who put their heart and soul into this party over the last ten years won’t bend for some condescending, Mulroneyite, Toronto liberal like you.
Posted by Dwayne | May 9, 2006 9:31 PM
Posted on May 9, 2006 21:31
I agree with Vellacott. I am surprised by your post.
Posted by Roy Eappen | May 10, 2006 7:01 AM
Posted on May 10, 2006 07:01
In fairness to Mr. Vellacott, this woman’s phony cryptic legal speak is the problem here. If you don’t want to leave yourself open to interpretation then cluck in plain language.
What I find most disturbing here Greg is that you, as a conservative, should be supporting someone who has the balls to openly criticize the supreme court. No institution in this land should be above criticism - particularly the ones run by un-elected appointees. And I don’t care how “esteemed” or “learn-ED” they are.
This notion that it is unacceptable to openly criticise the supreme court must be challenged as it’s nothing more than a left-wing canard with whole-sale subscription by the MSM and elites.
Mr. V was inelegant and that is about the worst he can be criticised for.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove | May 10, 2006 7:53 AM
Posted on May 10, 2006 07:53
People please. If you were offended that Dr. Bennett implied that kids raised by parents are destined for prison then you should be offended by Vellacott saying that McLachlin thinks she has “god-like” powers. Criticize the Supreme Court all you want, as long as you keep in the realm of rational.
Communications matter - especially for the CPC early on. People are dying to point to the “hidden agenda” and a stupid way of making an argument handed it to those people on a silver platter.
Posted by Greg Staples | May 10, 2006 8:38 AM
Posted on May 10, 2006 08:38
Your most recent comment should have been your original post.
As it stands, your original post appears ghost-written by your Sinister namesake.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove | May 10, 2006 9:40 AM
Posted on May 10, 2006 09:40
“Unwritten values” indeed.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | May 10, 2006 10:51 AM
Posted on May 10, 2006 10:51
As it stands, your original post appears ghost-written by your Sinister namesake.
Geez Greg, I think you have been insulted.
Posted by Greg | May 10, 2006 11:33 AM
Posted on May 10, 2006 11:33
The Black Rod is a liar. He falsifies a quote of McLachlin’s and quotes her out of context, ignoring her clear and plain statements.
Posted by thickslab | May 10, 2006 11:49 AM
Posted on May 10, 2006 11:49
Nice try, thickslab.
Saying it doesn’t make it so. The Chief Justice was even “lying” during her speech. She would say that she was not creating law. She was simply applying the law. Then she would turn around and give lots of instances where they would in fact create law.
She won’t call it creating. She calls it interpreting, reconciling and applying the law. The problem is she does this where no written law previously existed. She calls this natural law. It over-rides the actions of parliaments, constitutions and bills of rights. It is left to judges to apply this law. In essence, she has placed herself above the law in order to give the law. From where I type, that seems at the very least to be Moses-like.
Posted by PlaidShirt | May 10, 2006 4:05 PM
Posted on May 10, 2006 16:05
Missed this post while I was in TO.
I’m with you on this one Greg. Engage brain before mouth. Vellacotts rhetoric failed him hear, not his arguement.
Posted by BBS | May 12, 2006 8:50 AM
Posted on May 12, 2006 08:50
Replace ‘hear’ with here. Rest stands. :)
Posted by BBS | May 12, 2006 8:52 AM
Posted on May 12, 2006 08:52