Adam Daifallah points to a follow article by Gloria Galloway in
the Globe and Mail wherein she continues to make up, instead of report, the news. Adam Daifallah takes apart the first article in its' reliance on Elizabeth Harvey to create the story. Here are my favorite parts of the second article.
..."We've had 308 ridings participate in a very open democratic process," Mr. MacKay said. "Is there going to be differences of opinion? Certainly. Is there going to be sometimes heated debate? Absolutely, we expect that. But, as far as there being any conspiracy or takeover from any element of this party, I certainly don't see that."
I wonder how frustrating it is for politicians having to answer truisms to the media.
...Still, Conservative officials in Quebec are clearly concerned that the adoption of a social policy catering to the far-right wing of the party could cause irreparable damage in the province, where the party has failed to make inroads.
"If something in favour of traditional marriage passes, it would hurt us in Quebec," one senior Tory said.
Really? The Conservative Party adopting the identical position on SSM as Denmark, Sweden and, um, ah, France! it would someone ruin their election chances in Quebec. Who knows, but this is even better.
..."If something against abortion passes, there will be no sense in fielding candidates in Quebec."
Something against? That is really an extreme position. Canada is in legal limbo regarding abortion. This has caused a situation where pretty much anything goes. The Globe uses the term far-right. How far-left would one have to be to support never legislating against any type of abortion. For example, if the CPC where to announce that they fully support a women's right to choose, that abortion is always tragic and the party seeks to limit the number of abortions in Canada, not limit access but limit the number, would this be too extreme for Quebec?. This reduction of the numbers will be achieved by promoting education on abstinence and promoting a pro-adoption policy. Furthermore, the majority of Canadians agree there should be some limits as to the timeframe of abortions. Legislation limiting late-term or partial-birth (pick the term you find the least offensive) to cases where the health of the mother is at risk can surely be supported by the populace. Is Quebec so extreme that such moderate, logically and completely supported positions on abortion would cause a party to not field any candidates? Give your head a shake!
But why should reality get in the way of institutional bias. And polarizing groups in an argument makes things so much easier, I know because I mistakenly do it. As I mentioned previously the facts are not as nefarious as Ms. Galloway who have you believe.
