Saturday, July 29, 2017

The Many Lies and Scheer Nonsense of Andrew Scheer

Andrew Scheer may be the new leader of the religious right in Canada, but he seems to have as much respect for the Ten Commandments, as he does for our Canadian values.

Especially the commandment that instructs him to "not bear false witness".

So I'm glad to see that somebody has challenged this obscene article in the Toronto Star.

Blown the halo off his head, wiped his satanic smile off his face.

And exposed him as a creepy monster, who lies like a thief. 

Scheer’s article is full of misinformation, first advanced by the Harper government even after the Supreme Court — with a majority of Conservative appointees — unanimously ruled both in 2008 and 2010 that Khadr’s rights had been egregiously violated both by the illegal (according to the U.S. Supreme Court) “courts” in Guantanamo Bay, and by Canadian officials who interviewed Khadr.

Lies about the Supreme Court decisions.

Scheer writes that the Supreme Court never ordered the government to pay for Khadr’s illegal imprisonment and torture. But compensation was not the issue before the Supreme Court. It was whether Khadr’s rights were violated (they were) and whether Khadr should be repatriated (he should). In spite of the Supreme Court’s strong recommendation that Khadr be repatriated in 2010, the Harper government refused to repatriate him.

Lies about the actions of the monstrous Harper regime...

Scheer writes that the Supreme Court never ordered the government to pay for Khadr’s illegal imprisonment and torture. But compensation was not the issue before the Supreme Court. It was whether Khadr’s rights were violated (they were) and whether Khadr should be repatriated (he should). In spite of the Supreme Court’s strong recommendation that Khadr be repatriated in 2010, the Harper government refused to repatriate him.

Rapes the human rights of a young Canadian like a beast out of hell...

Scheer never mentions that Canada, under Harper, neglected its international obligations to treat Khadr as a child soldier, nor that there is no credible evidence that Khadr was responsible for the death of U.S. Delta Force soldier Sgt. Christopher Speer. In fact, it is just as likely that Speer was killed by friendly fire. Because much of the evidence has been destroyed by the illegal regime in Guantanamo, we will never know. Nevertheless, Scheer refers to Christopher Speer as “Khadr’s victim.”

Blows the Pentagon, like a hooker or a traitor.

And twists the choice facing Justin Trudeau like only a Con could.

Finally, Scheer claims the current government had a choice not to pay Khadr, and it would have been more sensible to fight the liability battle in court. I have not read of a single lawyer who claims that, under such a scenario, Khadr might have received less than the $10.5 million (half of which went to pay legal fees).

Most lawyers who have written on the subject estimate that a prolonged lawsuit would likely have resulted in a settlement significantly higher than $10.5 million, not counting the additional millions the government would have spent fighting such a case. Yes, the government had the choice to keep fighting a clear losing battle in court. Some choice.

Who would have Trudeau wash his hands like Pontius Pilate, and let the mob take out its rabid rage on our precious Supreme Court.

So Scheer could also dishonour it, like his filthy leader once did...

And for that, and all his other crimes against Canada, so deserves this verdict:

In a vibrant democracy, we hold out politicians to account to tell the truth, no matter how inconvenient, and to act honourably to correct false narratives. It is clear that Andrew Scheer has neither the honour nor the integrity to do either. So much for a principled Conservative movement in 2017.

Andrew Scheer is a sinister religious fanatic, without an ounce of human decency in his body.

And when he calls himself a Christian, he is in my opinion guilty of blasphemy.

You know, in a recent interview he said he likes to watch the TV series The Walking Dead...

And I have to admit I consider that an inspired choice.

For it is what his Cons have become, and where that creepy monster truly belongs...


  1. Anonymous10:53 AM

    He truly is a hideous con-rebel monster.

    1. hi anon...he is indeed, and I'm glad you mentioned bigot The Rebel. For let us never forget that one of the Rebel's bosses was Scheer's campaign manager. And that Ezra Levant was one of his loudest cheerleaders...

    2. Anonymous10:51 AM

      sorry, but I was just reading this while looking at articles of Andrew Scheer. I went to school with one of his sons! You cant possibly be so mean- I know this guy I'm surprised there are so many bad articles about him! how many of you actually have met him instead of listening to the press?????

  2. Anonymous1:05 PM

    It's hard to believe that the leader of the opposition could tell so many lies in such a short article. He must believe we are all fools. The party of Diefenbaker is indeed dead.

    1. Anonymous5:40 PM

      The party of Diefenbaker is as distant of a memory for Canada as the party of Eisenhower is for us Americans.

      I recently discovered a book that Canadians may be aware of called The Authoritarians, by a professor from Manitoba named Bob Altemeyer. It gives a pretty good insight into not only the Harper-Scheer-Bush-Trump types but their cultlike followers, who not only want a rigid traditionalist to be their "protector" but want him (and it's always a him) to impose that will on others they view as a threat.

      In Scheer's case it's not only Khadr whom rank and file conservatives want excoriated by their sociopathic altar boy, but Muslims in general, the "enabler" Trudeau and, by extension, those who voted him in (which would include Muslims). The "constituency of the ascendant" as it's called, for the scattershot Democratic party that unfortunately seems to have already undergone a schism between the Bernie progressives and the Obama/Clinton centrists. One hopes that the same doesn't turn out true for the Liberals, because enough purity ponies staying home or voting for the spoilers would let the cons walk right back in.

      As for going back to the future and "rethinking things as basic as space and time," when Trudeau said he wanted "his" Canada back, he meant it: Pierre's Just Society, the Canada his father envisioned long ago that he wanted to bring forward and away from the regression of Bush-lite Harperism. But Conservatives want "their Canada" to go back, way back, to John MacDonald, and never leave. For them, the answer to why they want to do this is "because it's 1867." The same is true of U.S. Republicans who think the current year is (or should be) 1790.

      Ike is just a character on South Park now (a Canadian, how about that), and Diefenbaker is little more than the wolf-dog on the quirky '90s CTV/CBS crime drama Due South. The Harpercons are the GOP of the North, and for both mirror-image parties there's no going back.

    2. hi anon 1:05 pm...I find it as shocking as you do. I'm sure I would never have voted for somebody like Diefenbaker, or any Con for that matter. But back then at least, Con leaders acted like Canadians, and could be trusted with our humble but precious values...

    3. hi anon 5:40pm...thanks for your excellent and most interesting comment. I love it when an Americans helps educate Canadians about our own country. Because goodness knows some of us need all the help we can get ;)
      We really do need to remind those "purity ponies" that perfection can sometimes be the enemy of the good, and that progressives should stop fighting themselves and unite to fight the real enemy...

  3. John B.1:43 PM

    "In spite of the Supreme Court’s strong recommendation that Khadr be repatriated in 2010, the Harper government refused to repatriate him."

    That's one way of putting it. It occurred to me when reading that passage that I hadn't picked up on the "strong recommendation" cited when I read the decision. This is what the SC said in 2010:

    "After repeated requests by K that the Canadian government seek his repatriation, the Prime Minister announced his decision not to do so. K then applied to the Federal Court for judicial review, alleging that the decision violated his rights under s. 7 of the Charter. The Federal Court held that under the special circumstances of this case, Canada had a duty to protect K under s. 7 of the Charter and ordered the government to request his repatriation. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the order, but stated that the s. 7 breach arose from the interrogation conducted in 2004 with the knowledge that K had been subjected to the 'frequent flyer program'. ...

    "K is entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The remedy sought by K — an order that Canada request his repatriation — is sufficiently connected to the Charter breach that occurred in 2003 and 2004 because of the continuing effect of this breach into the present and its possible effect on K’s ultimate trial. While the government must have flexibility in deciding how its duties under the royal prerogative over foreign relations are discharged, the executive is not exempt from constitutional scrutiny. Courts have the jurisdiction and the duty to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the Crown exists; if so, whether its exercise infringes the Charter or other constitutional norms; and, where necessary, to give specific direction to the executive branch of the government. Here, the trial judge misdirected himself in ordering the government to request K’s repatriation, in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs and the inconclusive state of the record. The appropriate remedy in this case is to declare that K’s Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to decide how best to respond in light of current information, its responsibility over foreign affairs, and the Charter."

    A "strong recommendation" based on factors lacking sufficient strength to support "specific direction" while specifying judicial misdirection in the order to request repatriation? Okay.

    1. hi John...I'm not very good at lawyer talk, and in the Khadr case I believe it only serves to conceal and confuse. The fact is Omar Khadr was a Canadian child soldier, who according to the UN protocol on child soldiers, which we were the first to sign and the first to ignore, he should have been rehabilitated not punished. And above all never tortured or held for almost ten years in a monstrous place like Guantanamo. The case was a legal travesty, and in my opinion Omar Khadr deserves every dollar he receives...

  4. Ok Shiny Pony stand up your father would have without hesitation.

    1. hi Steve...I wish you wouldn't call Trudeau what Ezra Levant calls him. It's beneath you. But as for standing up for what is right, but not popular, I think Justin has done well, and his father would be proud of him...

    2. I was being sarcastic, but when Scheer opens him self up to be eviscerated I would like to see Justin stick the knife in like his father would have.

  5. e. a. f.5:37 AM

    Scheer will continue with the same lines and policies Harper did. It did get them 100 seats and kept them as official opposition. Its not a bad gig as far as jobs go and if the Liberals ever screw up, well they expect to be returned to office in 15 years or so. Scheer is young enough to wait. the rest of them have their time at the public trough and so we go on and on. Now it may come to pass that some voters may become tired of the conservatives and make the NDP the official opposition, but it is doubtful. The Cons have their base and life continues. for them