The Full Monte

Welcome To "The Full Monte" A Detailed Accounting Of The Monte Solberg Affair

2006-01-23T05:54:00.000-08:00

Summary

Senior Conservative Member of Parliament Monte Solberg, Hon. Member for Medicine Hat, was asked on several occasions to repudiate his endorsement and promotion of racist policies - including such ideas as "The re-establishment of residential schools for indian children", among other things. In response to many emails making the CPC Leadership aware of these concerns, instead of repudiating such remarks and the inciteful commentary on various blogs that Mr. Monte Solberg links himself with, he has instead affirmed his strong support of the promotion of racist policies and statements - such as those made by his self-proclaimed "inspiring friend" Kate McMillan on her "Small Dead Animals" blog and others like it.

In fact, Mr. Solberg has continued for months now to promote these websites, link to them, endorse them, and thereby can be said to have given full sanction to the racist and inciteful material contained therein. The Conservative Party of Canada's Leadership (including Mr.Solberg, and Stephen Harper, Inky Mark, Jim Prentince, and Rob Nicholson) were given repeated notice of Mr.Solberg's endorsement and promotion of links to racist propaganda. Nevertheless the Conservative Party of Canada and it's leadership has, to date, refused to repudiate or apologize for Monte Solberg's endorsement of, promotion of, and sanction of racist speech.

For readers I offer the quick links below as an index to this site to help them more easily navigate through the information as quickly as possible. If you have any questions, concerns, or complaints please email me, at tiddlypum@gmail.com. I will be happy to answer your questions and concerns. Thank you.

1. A Short Narrative/Chronology of Events

2. The Longer Narrative/Chronology of Events with screen captures, longer quotes, and links

3. Archive of All Correspondence With The Conservative Party Of Canada On This Issue

4. What Exactly Is "Hate Speech" in Canada under the Criminal Code?

5. What Is "Genocide?" & Were Residential Schools For Indian Children In Canada A Form Of Genocide? And Is Proposing That They Be Re-Created A Form or Advocacy Of Proposing Genocide?

6. What is "Guilt By Association - And What It Isn't. :What is an example of an actual "Guilt by Association" fallacy argument & why is it that what Mr.Solberg has done, and continues to do is *not* merely "Guilt by Association" as he and his supporters have claimed, in his defence.

7. FAQ or Frequently Asked Questions (A Work in Progress - Not Developed as of this date Jan 15th 2006)

(Caveat Lector: Dear Readers: If any of the links on this to the SDA, or Angry Website, or Monte Solberg Website, or assorted Blogging Tory Websites no longer work when you visit them, OR if the quotes given are different than what now appears at those links, please alert me immediately. I have taken the precaution of taking screen captures of all of this material, as well as mirroring some of it on another site, since there have been occasions where in the past when attention has been brought to bear on a particularly embarrasing comment by a blogging tory, the material either vanishes, is edited after the fact or changes. If you see any of this has happened - please contact me immediately by email or by phone 407-574-3659 --Since at this point, the Blogging Tories are well aware that most of this material has been archived and backed up, I don't forsee this being a problem... but in case it is - we do need to know ASAP-- thank you for your help!)

A Brief Chronology Of Events

2006-01-15T03:00:00.000-08:00

This is a very brief - "bare-bones" Chronology of the events :
A Longer and More Detailed Chronology Is Available Here

December 4th, 2004, Kate McMillan on SDA writes: “Build new residental schools, if that's what it takes and tell the detractors to go to hell."

Dec 28th 2004, Blogging Tories Blogging Alliance Is "Spontaneously" Born

Dec 31st 2004 Kate McMillan writes on The Shotgun “Canada needs institutions to lock up the Indian activists and apologists…”

Jan 27^th Kate McMillan promotes The Minute-Man Project on SDA – (An organization that is heavily infiltrated with white supremacists and neo-nazis)

First Week Feb, RCMP in Delisle Sask Make Record of Complaints regarding McMillan, Crown Council determines that thus far her commentary does not rise to the level of hate speech, but complainants are urged that should she continue to make further remarks inciting hatred towards ethnic groups that they be alerted and that the file remains open.

April 9 2005, Kate McMillan calls for what amounts to a Genocidal “Solution” to the crisis afflicting Angolans dealing with the Marburg Virus. Warren Kinsella suggests people report her for violations of hate-speech laws. She had written of the Angolans in this humanitarian crisis: "Is there a point where we are allowed to stop feeling sympathy for these people, seal off the borders and just let nature take its course?"

Final Week of April 2005 –Kate McMillan’s “Libranos” poster is slightly reworked by the Western Standard and ends up being held up in the House of Commons. Joe Volpe, Immigration Minister remarks that this poster is a smear on Canadians of Italian descent and suggests that “The Klan is alive and well in the Conservative Party of Canada”

May 2^nd Monte Solberg, Hon Member of Parliament from Medicine Hat, Conservative Member of Parliament, Finance Critic remarks on his blog that Kate McMillan (among others) is a “Friend” who “Inspires him” and he urges people to especially check out her website. He praises her art work, and her “sense of humour”

May 13^th Kate McMillan Builds the “Ontario Separation Party, “Dedicated to Removing Ontario From Confederation, With Or Without It’s Support”

May 18^th Monte Solberg again praises Kate McMillan and links directly to her site, this is after a rather long series of emails have been sent to himself and to other leaders within the conservative party alerting them to Ms.McMillan’s commentary mentioned above in this chronology.

May 31^st Kate McMillan defends/justifies and rationalizes the infamous “The Japs Were Bastards” Comments which were made by CPC MP Stephen Fletcher to a group of horrified WWII Veterans. Fletcher subsequently apologized for his remarks

Jun 15^th Ferret one of the Co-Owners of the Blogging Tories suggests that Native Indian Reserves pose a risk to the United States and suggests that the “Minute-Man Project” patrol Indian Reserves In Canada. (This is the Same Minute Man Project that according to the Southern Poverty Law Association is heavily infiltrated with white supremacists and neo-nazis – see #4)

July 15^th Steven Janke – Blogging Tory, aka Angry in the Great White North, goes on the record openly and proudly defending the proposal of Kate McMillan that “Canada Needs Institutions to Lock Up The Indian Activists and Apologists” – When asked to clarify, just to be sure if that’s what he means, even when addressing an Aboriginal “activist” who worked for years even with members of the Canadian Alliance to help clean up Indian Act Government and the DIA, he re-iterates his position. “They should be prosecuted and incarcerated” (although he doesn’t say for what crimes)

July 15^th, Kate McMillan manages to libel The CBC, The BC Human Rights Commission and an Elder Aboriginal Arthritic Amputee Gladys Radek, who just won a landmark Human Rights Case in BC, by attempting with creative editing of her “reporting” on her blog to make the claim that Ms.Radek, (the woman who won the landmark HRC case) was wearing dirty clothing, had open sores and wounds, red eyes, and was acting intoxicated while she was being ejected from the mall in question.

Nov 12^th 2005: Monte Solberg gives yet another endorsement,promotion of McMillan and other sites, and thereby continues to sanction Kate McMillan’s racism and hate-speech towards various ethnic groups she has incited hatred towards.

The Longer Chronology Contains Links, ScreenCaptutes, Detailed and Longer Quotes...

Backgrounder & Chronology of Events

2006-01-14T11:22:00.000-08:00

COMPREHENSIVE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

1) December 4th, 2004, Kate McMillan on her Small Dead Animals Blog --Makes A Post Entitled "Who Failed Delores Bird?" ( http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001100.html ) In this blog post she says "Build new residental schools, if that's what it takes and tell the detractors to go to hell."

2) Dec 28th 2004, Blogging Tories Blogging Alliance Is Spontaneously Born (Or is it?)

3) Dec 31st 2004 reacting to those who pointed out that cases of child abuse/neglect amongst caucasians would not justify creating residential schools for them: "I changed my mind. We don't need residential schools for those little 4 year olds running the streets of Saskatoon late at night. We need institutions to lock up the Indian activists and apologists, so that there's an outside chance that the concept of "personal responsibility" will take hold in First Nations communities."

4) Jan 27th 2005 McMillan promotes “The Minute Man Project” in the United States. This was an organization in the United States that got a lot of press because it's volunteer members were basically making a nuisance of themselves by "patrolling" the borders" to stop illegal immigrants. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported a short time later that this organization was heavily infiltrated with neo-nazis and white supremacists .McMillan, Blogging Tory in good standing, remarks of the Minute Man project, herself and her friends and associates:

How I Spent My Summer Vacation: Huh. Someone wasn't thinking.... "This is strictly a volunteer project. No financial subsidies are available. And, you will probably need a tent, sleeping bag, hiking gear, etc. You will be responsible for all costs associated with your participation." Subsidies? I know people who would pay for the chance to do this.

5) First Week of Feb 2005 -- The Crown Council, in response to complaints made about McMillan's suggestion about Residential Schools for Indian Children and "Locking Up The Indian Activists and Apologists" :"That the comments re "Locking up the Indian activists" and "Bringing back the residential schools for indian children" in and of themselves did not quite (constitute a hate-speech violation, however, if McMillan were to make further such commentary about Aboriginals or other ethnic groups that were deemed hate speech, or did fall within the parameters of the laws concerning hate speech, we were urged to forward the material on and they would be happy to look at it, and continue to investigate." So the situation was left as it was.

6) April 9, 2005 Kate McMillan makes weird remarks about Angolans. At this time the deadly Marburg Virus outbreak was happening, and panic stricken Angolans were imposing their own quarantines on their villages, even upon WHO workers who were there trying to help. These quarantines, caused by the panic had turned violent for a time. McMillan said in the following blogpost:( http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001669.html )

"Is there a point where we are allowed to stop feeling sympathy for these people, seal off the borders and just let nature take its course?"

Warren Kinsella remarks on his blog, (which causes a bit of a stir) that this is "Hate-Speech" bordering on calling for genocide for Angolans and suggests somebody report it to the RCMP. This is referenced on McMillan’s Wikipedia entry. For a really good response to this, and detailed explanation as to why this suggestion of hers amounts to a call for genocide, even if it’s based on stupidity and ignorance see here

7) Last week of April 2005 Kate McMillan's ArtWork of the Libranos is slightly worked over by the Western Standard, and then held up in the House of Commons which causes Joe Volpe to get quite upset and refer to the "Klan" being alive and well in the Conservative Party of Canada

Monte Solberg writes on his blog that this is a funny and hypocritcal remark to make by Joe Volpe, and indeed Volpes outrage over Italian people being smeared in this fashion is mocked at great length by Blogging Tories, including Kate McMillan and Ezra Levant. To many other people, including Aboriginals, Mr.Volpe's remarks don't seem to be all that funny or off the mark at all

8) May 2nd, 2005 Monte Solberg writes a mash note to Kate McMillan, among others with a blog post entitled "My blogger friends inspire me"

"My blogger friends inspire me:

“Thanks to my blogger friends, the vast majority whom I've never met, for their great work. A tip of my Cato University ball hat this morning to Kate McMillan at Small Dead Animals... and By the way you need to check out Kate's artwork on her main site. She is one talented girl, and with a sense of humour too. I was chatting with Ezra Levant at Civitas this weekend and we had a good laugh about that "sleeping" gopher picture on Kate's blog."

9) May 13th 2005, McMillan builds the "Ontario Separation Party" and this is quite widely promoted by Free Dominion, and assorted Blogging Tories. See The Graphic Here. "Dedicated to Removing Ontario From Confederation With Or Without It's Consent"

This website is still available to be seen if you visit the following URL .Some emails were sent to Monte, asking him again, if this is the sort of thing that he is inspired by, or finds "funny" since he mentioned McMillan's "great sense of humour" in his praise for her . Again. No response is forthcoming from Monte or his staffers on this issue.

10) May 18th 2005, After having been alerted to Kate McMillans comments about Aboriginals, does he stop linking to her, and promoting her and her blog, like a sensible politician would do? Or like somebody who disagrees with the notion of "recreating residential schools for aboriginal children" - or the idea that "Canada needs institutions to lock up the Indian activisits and apoloogists?" Nope. He links to her again. Not to a story that he has been told about by visiting her blog (which is common blog etiquette, but just links directly to her)

11) May 31st, 2005, Kate McMillan defends/ justifies and rationalizes the infamous "The Japs Were Bastards" quote made by Stephen Fletcher, MP to a group of horrified veterans. Fletcher subsequently had the good sense to apologize to Japanese people and to the Vets for assaulting them with this bigotry and racism. Not so with Small Dead Animals...

As you can see she puts up a mocking title for her blog-post “An Angry Party With Narrow Views” in "Scare Quotes" and provides a "compare & contrast" historical text, which one might supposes justifies in her mind the use of this racist epiteth. One wonder if Kate is even aware that Canada was actually on the same side of Japan during World War I, and if that means anything at all to her. .

12) June 15, 2005 – Co-Owner of the Blogging Tories – Craig Smith, who writes under the nym “Ferret” posts an article entitled “Are Native Reserves a threat to the USA?” – He originally suggested that Canada should use it’s military to patrol Indian Reserves (but when the heat got too intense for him on that count, he changed his post and instead wrote the following)

“If a Canadian schoolboy is prepared to blow up an American high school because he hates America then something tells me the native featured in the photo below would have no qualms accepting a large sum of money to smuggle a suspicious looking group of Saudi Arabians into the United States. These "minutemen" should be focusing their efforts near Canadian native reserves.”

Some responded to his previous remarks by reminding him that in that infamous Mohawk vs American Marine picture which he had posted that an interesting factoid he should be aware of, was that some 7-8 years after this affair was over, the American Marine in the famous picture was caught, charged and sent to prison for trafficking in large amounts of cocaine. He subsequently took the picture down and removed those remarks from his comments section. If you looks closely at the above, you will note that he also , ,makes mention of and promotes "the minute-men” project – (See above in Section 4 -- re McMillan’s comments,This is a group that has/had been according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, infiltrated by neo-nazis and white supremacists.)

14) July 15th 2005 - Steve Janke, aka “Angry In The Great White North”, another Famous "Blogging Tory" Goes on Record Agreeing with McMillan that "Canada needs institutions to Lock Up The Indian Activists and Apologists" He takes her at her word literally. Says that Aboriginal Activists have done harm to Canada (even Aboriginal activists like myself who spent almost 7 years working to try and get more responsible and responsive Indian Act government from both Indian Act Bands and the DIA….)

Sometime later, when pressed on whether he is just making rhetorical blowhard noise or whether he actually agrees with Kate’s position on “Locking Up the Indian Activists” even when he knows he is talking with/speaking directly to an Aboriginal “activist” who has dedicated 5-7 years at trying to clean up Indian Act and DIA Government… he says…

15) July 15th, 2005: Kate McMillan Slanders, the Human Rights Commission, the CBC and an Aboriginal Arthritis Suffering Elder Amputee named Gladys Radek, who had just won a landmark Human Rights Case in Vancouver which made national headlines. Ms Radek had spent years in the HRC process wherein she had finally proven that a mall had systematically discriminated against her and other Aboriginal People.

McMillan thought that the issue was frightfully funny when she posted a portion of the CBC article on the subject, cutting out a relevant part of the context of the CBC article, which would have given the reader a better and truer understanding of what had actually happened to Ms.Radek.

We need to quote the entirety of McMillan’s "blog post" to give a full showing of just how offensive and dishonest and indeed even racist this article by McMillan is. See below (McMillan's writing is in black and bolded, the article she quotes is in italics and non-bolded)

"BC Human Rights Tribunal Slanders Aboriginals

Some stories just tell themselves.....

B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the International Village Mall in Vancouver discriminated against aboriginal people.

Complainant Gladys Radek was awarded $15,000 in the tribunal's decision Wednesday. Radek claimed she and other native people had been discriminated against by security guards at the mall, who continually barred them from entering the mall. Human Rights Tribunal member Lindsay Lyster agreed. In her decision, she says the mall's owner, Henderson Development, and Securigard, the mall's former security company, "established a pattern of systemic discrimination."

[...]

It was mall policy to deny access to people who had dirty clothing, open sores and wounds, red eyes, and who were acting intoxicated. Lyster ruled that the policy created practices that had an unfair and discriminatory effect on aboriginal people."

Now, this would give one the impression that Ms.Radek had dirty clothing, open sores, wounds, red eyes, and was acting intoxicated. None of this was true. These were the false and lame excuses given by the mall security for the descriminatory practices they were caught engaging in. That's what McMillan's snipped away with her elipses in square brackets In actual fact, Ms.Radek was always, according to the records of the case, which are available to be read on-line, neatly well dressed, clean. She did not suffer from open sores or wounds. She did not have red eyes. She did not drink, she did not use drugs of any kind. In fact, she was, when she was discriminatorily being physically ejected from the mall, was merely attempting to buy a very high priced coffee drink from Starbucks, and was in fact well and very neatly dressed.... much like any non-aboriginal yuppie might be. But, then yuppies aren't often older, arthritic, missing a limb, and therefore challenged with their mobility as well as being native looking and therfore subject to the kind of harrasment that Kate and her Small Dead Animals participants and Fans like Monte Solberg and "RRightGirl" (who called the article "Hilarious") find to be so funny. Maybe this is the kind of thing that Monte Solberg, was talking about when he said his "inspiring friend Kate was a talented girl with a sense of humour".

16) November 12^th Monte Solbergs most recent promotion/endorsement and praise of certain Blogging Tories, includes none other than his "inspiring friend" Kate McMillan, as well as Ezra Levant of The Shotgun,of "stock-a-holic" and "it's the stupid charter" buttons fame!

“Back to blogging. Stephen Taylor, Kate McMillan and the Western Standard (Ezra) are the steel in the spine of the Canadian conservative blogosphere. In some way, when something is happening, one or all of these people are (is? See what I mean) somehow involved. I am a drive-by-blogger. I blog on whatever the random firings in my head direct me to do. Stephen, Kate and Ezra actually nurture the current debates. They actually have CONTENT in their blogs, and they sustain free riders like me.”

Letter From CPC Member Regarding This Website & It's Content

2006-01-14T11:21:00.000-08:00

Meaghan,

Last year I resigned from the Victoria EDA over what I consider to be the CPC's support of bigoted and ignorant material. At that time I saw the online war now exposed at http://www.btsexposed.blogspot.com/.

Not mentioned on the blog is that the Canadian Tax Payers Federation was also linking to the same site that you (Meaghan Walker Willams) are rightly objecting to and about which you e-mailed Solberg and others to strongly complain about. As for myself, I also protested loudly about Monte Solberg's endorsement of the site.

I also objected to the CTF's philosophical assumptions regarding aboriginals, which I believe to be prejudiced against aboriginals. As you are now doing publicly, I also made Solberg's most disgusting endorsement known internally on the conservative private chat site that includes many many constituency presidents and MPs - protesting loudly about Solberg's endorsement;
it is now a matter of historical fact that nearly the entire conservative establishment (including Stephan Harper) is aware of Solberg's endorsement of Kate McMillan AND her racially charged policy perspectives.

As you may or may not be aware, as was the case, the CTF was also endorsing this material when I demanded that the local EDA stop cheering on the CTFs aboriginal policy positions. When the local EDA refused, that is when I resigned in protest over material that I believe to be ignorant and bigoted. At this point I seek to restate publicly that I completely and unreservedly disassociate myself from the CPC's hostile perspectives towards aboriginals and their rights. Rather than condemning such material, as the CPC should have done, they apparently have since defended it and continued to promote it - as evidenced by the material at http://www.btsexposed.blogspot.com/

Eugene Parks
Victoria, BC
elparks@shaw.ca

A Chronology of Correspondence With The Conservative Party Officials And Staffers

2006-01-14T11:20:00.000-08:00

Chronology of Correspondence With The Leadership Of the Conservative Party of Canada
On The Issue of The Endorsement/Sanction/Support/Promotion Of Racist Websites And Blogs

In The Year 2005

May 6th: 1st Email To Monte Solberg Re Endorsement of SDA Site

May 8th: 2nd Email To Monte Solberg Re SDA Site Promotion

May 8th: 1st Email To Stephen Harper re Solberg Endorsement of SDA

May 8th: 1st Email To Rob Nicholson (Party Whip) re Solberg Endorsement of SDA

May 9th: 3rd Email To Monte Solberg Re No Response About Emails Re Endorsement of SDA

May 9th: 1st Email To Inky Mark Re Racist Statements And Solbergs Endorsement of SDA

May 10th: Ms. Garrison, at Inky Mark's Request, Forward's My Letter To Harper's Attention

May 10th: Form Letter From Stephen Harper's Office Arrives For Me

May 11th: 1st Email To Jim Prentice, Re Solberg's Endorsement of SDA

May 13th: 4th Email To Monte Solberg About SDA's Ontario Separation Party

May 17th : My 2nd and last email to Stephen Harper on the Subject of Solberg's Endorsement of SDA and question of whether the CPC is in bed with Racists.

In The Year 2006

Jan 12th Coversation/Correspondence with CPC Communcations Staffer Emma Welford About Whether Blogging Tories are Part Of The Conservative Party of Canada

Jan 15th Correspondence to Sandra Buckler in CPC OLO about Official Connections Between Blogging Tories And The Conservative Party of Canada

Jan 18th Email To Jason Kenney re Correlations Between The Omni Affair and the Solberg Affair, Can Jason Kenney Help here? Will he call a Press Conf. To Deal With The Issue

Dear Jason Kenney Jan 18th 2006. "Apres Les Omni, C'est Les Moi"

2006-01-13T22:53:00.000-08:00

Dear Jason Kenney
Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca
January 18th 2006

You know, I was just reviewing some of the earliest weeks of the campaign and having a good laugh over some of the funny things that went on back then. Especially, the whole "Omni" debacle. I blogged about it here, and here. You might find it fun to read about out. Or maybe you won't.

Ok - so, lemme get this straight. To sum things up briefly:

Scott Feschuk, hard at work in the Paul Martin Campaign Salt-Mines, (aka Blogboy), writes this article about "awkward Omni subscribers, and because neither you, nor your staffers have ever heard of or it would seem have even ostensibly read OMNI Magazine, and none of you had read current events and heard about the Former Canadian Defence Minister who had gotten International Press Coverage talking about "Intergalatic UFO Conspiracies" and put the two bon mots together... and then -- because you or your staff got exactly ONE COMPLAINT (according to what you told this news outlet -- see below) regarding blogboys refference to "omni subscribers being called "socially awkward" you called a National Press Conferrence and proceeded to give Paul Martin and the Liberals absolute hell for denigrating Canada's rich multi-cultural mosaic, and insulting the many ethnic groups that live within the country.

Ok.. to recap:.The Conservative Party of Canada gets *ONE*... count'em ONE complaint, from an Omni TV subscriber, and you hold a National Press Conferrence to try and make Scott Feschuk look like some sort of knuckle dragging neanderthal racist pig, and the Liberal Party, likewise viz. it's association with him.

Hmmmmm

Well, look Jason lets leave aside the fact that in the last 18 months online, I've yet to see but one On-Line conservative who refered to "multiculturalism" in flattering terms. I have seen Blogging Tories and on-line conservatives "Standing up for Canada" at various locations like the Western Standand and Small Dead Animals (two of the most popular websites of on-line Conservatives) - refer to multiculturalism as a 'disease" and an 'cancer that is infecting" our society on a more than frequent basis. But - let's leave that lone..

I'm just curious about this issue of responding to "ONE" complaint.

I have a complaint too Jason. And it's a very serious one.

Would you like to know what it is?

It's as serious as the one made by the Omni Subscriber that you and the CPC were so quick to move upon. In fact it's more serious than the Omni Subscriber one, because it's actually based on.. um.. reality and facts and not somebody misintrepretations of the words of BlogBoy.

Here's my complaint.

Do you know Jason..... that there is a member of Parliament who has been blogging... and this member of parliament has been hanging out at very whacko fringe type sites on the internet that incite hatred towards various ethnic groups, and indeed, is extremely opposed to multiculturalism? -- (Not just themselves, the blog owner - but the people who participate in the comments section of that website...)

And Jason, I hope you are sitting down for this one... ok.. grab a chair - and steady yourself. This member of parliament....has even called Ernset Zundel an "inspiring friend"... wait -- that's not quite right... He didn't call Ernest Zundel. This isn't like a David Ahnekew and anti-semite thing.. I'm getting confused.. Bear with me.

No... The blog in question, that this member of parliament has been endorsing, promoting, and sanctioning for months - has called for Canada to bring back the residential schools for Aboriginal Children AND that "Canada needs institutions to lock up Indian Activists and apologists" - among other things.. I mean.. those things being said are pretty awful, don't you agree?

- But WAIT there's even worse material on this blog, that this member of parliament has been urging people to visit via his own personal blog that he uses for his on-line campaign, and previously was using via his constitutency office.

Do you know who I'm talking about?

Any guesses?

Now.. If I told you it was a Liberal - how fast could you organize a press conference denouncing this MP and harranguing them and the Liberals for endorsing, promoting and sanctioning such a website as these? Would it be like within 24 hours like the Omni thing? Or would it take a little longer? Like 35 hours or so?

Here's the problem Jason.
As you probably are well aware by now.
It's not a Liberal or an NDP or a Green Candidate or Member of parliament.

It's none other than your good friend Monte Solberg.

Now... I don't think honestly that Monte himself believes in all this wicked stuff. At least I hope to god he doesn't.

But I find it absoutley amazing that he continues to endorse, promote and thus sanction the materials on this woman's website, even after he AND the leadership of the party have been given ample evidence that this is really and truly what's going on. I have been told be reasonably good sources that for the most part Monte is shielded from this sort of criticism. So maybe he doesn't know. Maybe you could tell him, and ask him to respond. That would be cool.

An apology to myself and other aboriginals who read this endorsement/sanaction/promotion of this SDA website and it's filthy racism towards aboriginals from him and the CPC is in order, I do believe, considering how many months they have completely ignored it.

If you don't believe me, that Monte has promoted, endorsed/sanctioned this racism and collectivist "hate-speech" towards aboriginals and other ethnic groups within Canada and elswhere-- - feel free to check it all out for yourself.

Since May of this year, I have been asking the CPC to hasndle the situation. You can see the efforts made in this capacity - right here. (I naturally will be adding this letter to the correspondence)

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Meaghan Champion
407-574-3659
#10 Pine course Way
Ocala FL, 34472

CC AFN, BC Union of Indian Chiefs & Bill Wilson
CC Cowichan Tribes Chief and Counci
CC Heather Evans, CBC National
CC AntoniaZ The STAR
CC Sean Holman - The Public Eye Online

What is The Criminal Definition of "HateSpeech" in Canada

2006-01-13T13:30:00.000-08:00

There are two portions of the Criminal Code That Deal with "Hate-Speech"

Section 318 And Section 319

Section 318 says:

ADVOCATING GENOCIDE
... / Definition of "hate propaganda" / Consent / Definition of "identifiable group".

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely

(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. [R.S. c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]

Section 319 Says:

PUBLIC INCITEMENT OF HATRED
... / Wilful promotion of hatred / Defences / Forfeiture / Exemption from seizure of communication facilities / Consent / Definitions / "communicating" / "identifiable group" / "public place" / "statements".

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against and identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such convictions, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(7) In this section,

"communicating"
includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
"identifiable group"
has the same meaning as in section 318 ;
"public place"
includes any place to which the public have access as a right or by invitation, express or implied;
"statements"
includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electromagnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations. [R.S., c.11 (1st Supp.), s.1.]

Note: Although at some of this section infringes the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , it has been ruled that it constitutes a reasonable limit on that right and is therefore valid legislation: R. v. Keegstra (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 110, [1991] 4 W.W.R. 136, 79 Alta. L.R. (2d) 97 (C.A.).

What is Genocide Exactly?

2006-01-13T10:24:00.000-08:00

An important aspect of this entire controversy is whether or not Kate McMillan's remarks about Aboriginals, Angolans, Japanese People, etc, fall under the definition of hate-speech, and specifically if she by advocating for the recreation of "Residential Schools for Indian Children", as well as her promotion of the idea that "Canada needs Institutions to Lock Up Indian Activists and Apologists" and her "solution" for the Angolans during the Marburg Crisis were in fact forms of advocacy of Genocide.

In order to make such a determination, one must first understand what exactly "Genocide" is - not only in the common parlance, but also under domestic legal definition, as well as under International legal terms.

That's what this short entry here proposes to do: To simply lay out the facts about what the common definitions of Genocide are.

Under Canada's Criminal Code: Section 318, the definition is rather simple:

318. (2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

However, there are other things to be considered when you look at Canada's Criminal Code Section 318 (2) (b), and by that, I mean most specifically, "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" (Or the CPPCG)

The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and later came into effect in January 1951. It defines and outlaws genocide. Thus far the total number of States who have ratified the CPPCG is 133. Canada is one such State that has ratified the CPPCG. All participating countries are required to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and peacetime.

The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Genocide is thus considered a crime under International Law. The question remains - How shall there be International Prosecution of such crimes? Wikipedia discusses this with the following:

"All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent[2]. Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.

It is commonly accepted that, at least since World War II, genocide has been illegal under customary international law as a peremptory norm, as well as under conventional international law. Acts of genocide are generally difficult to establish, for prosecution, since intent, demonstrating a chain of accountability, has to be established. Due to its gravity, genocide can be prosecuted by any state at any time under its universal jurisdiction. International criminal courts and tribunals function primarily because the states involved are incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes of this magnitude themselves."

Clearly, Canada being a signatory to the CPPCG, which recognizes and lays out *that* the "forcible transfer of children of one group to another group" constitutes genocide, then this should be understood to fall within the range of the Canadian Criminal Code's definition - 318 (2) (b) "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction." would meet the criteria. And at it's core, that is what the Residential Schools, of Canada's history were, and undoubtedly would be, should they ever be recreated.

Quite possibly, the reluctance of the Crown in this case to be willing to recognize the advocacy of the recreation of Residential Schools for Aboriginal Children by Kate McMillan, is merely one of political expediency and not wanting to open up a huge can of worms that the vast majority of Canadians don't want to look at.

For example, thus far, No politician, or public official, or political party or government has been charged with "Crimes Against Humanity" or "Genocide" for having actually comitted the act of forcibly removing generation after generation of Aboriginal children from one group to another group....(which the CPPCG states is a form of genocide) and so the prosecution of some individuals in Canada for merely suggesting that this practice be reborn, poses something of a sticky wicket for everybody, doesn't it?

If they did prosecute McMillan, for advocating Genocide, they would have to admit that the Residential Schools, with their (in some cases) 25-50% mortality rates, forced exposure to diseases, experiments on starvation, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, psychological abuse, endentured servitude, forced sterilization programs and assorted medical experiments.... was in fact a pogrom or form of Genocide and done in such a way as to"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"

Isn't this whole issue no more than the "Logical Fallacy Of Guilt By Association"

2006-01-13T09:05:00.000-08:00

And Does It Apply To Monte Solberg & His Association/Endorsement Of/Promotion Of and Sanction of Small Dead Animals and Various Other Blogging Tories' Blogs.

The Logical Fallacy Known As "Guilt By Association" is also known as a "Red Herring" Fallacy.

Commonly called either

Ignoratio Elenchi ("ignorance of refutation", Latin)
or
Irrelevant Thesis

It is an informal logical fallacy. And by that it is explained thusly:

An informal fallacy is one that is not formal, that is, it is a type of fallacy in which the content of the argument is relevant to its fallaciousness, or which is fallacious for epistemological, dialectical, or pragmatic reasons. Typically, informal fallacies occur in non-deductive reasoning, which relies on content as well as form for cogency. Also, because content is important in informal fallacies, there are arguments with the form of the fallacy which are cogent. For this reason, when forms for informal fallacies are given, this is for identification purposes only, that is, one cannot tell from the form alone that an instance is fallacious. Rather, the forms will help to differentiate between distinct types of informal fallacy.(Source -- S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994).) [Emphasis and Bolding Original & Mine]

The "Guilt By Association" Fallacy is somewhat best understood by the phrase "One can be judged by the company one keeps". The example given by this particular Logical Fallacy Guide is as follows:

"The al Qaeda Cheering Section
"The most telling moment in last night's [State of the Union] speech came after the president noted that 'key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.' In response, notes the New York Times, 'some critics in Congress applauded enthusiastically.' If Osama bin Laden watched the speech, one imagines him applauding too."(Source: James Taranto, "The al Qaeda Cheering Section", Best of the Web Today, 1/21/2004)

Analysis of what's wrong with the above statement offered:

That Osama bin Laden might approve of the expiration of provisions of the Patriot Act does not show that American critics are wrong to also approve, since the reasons for their approval are different. Some Americans oppose parts of the Patriot Act because they believe that it infringes upon the rights of Americans without significantly helping to prevent terrorism. They may be wrong, but that doesn't make them an al Qaeda cheering squad.

Now, that we are clear on what "Guilt by Association is" and what it is not... and when it is applicable, and when it is not... let me bring up Kate McMillan and the Blogging Tories and Monte Solberg and the Conservative Party of Canada

Here are are a rendering of the facts which are indisputable at this point:

1) Kate McMillan has said on both her blog and on The Shotgun , among other things:

a) That Canada should bring back residential schools for Indian Children...

b) "Canada needs institutions to lock up the Indian Activists and Apologists..."

2) She made these comments in a public forum

3)Ms.McMillan has never retracted these statements, nor apologized for them. She has in fact defended them on several occasions. Some Blogging Tories have also defended them. Most notably, Richard Evans, Peter Rempel, Anonologue, and Steven Janke. (To be fair, Richard Evans and Anonaloguel were both kicked out of the Blogging Tories a short time ago... but I just wanted to point out, that this is an issue that has been "debated" in blogworld for some time) To my knowledge, they (the comments re Indian Activists being locked up and Residential Schools for Indian Children) still remain on her & the Shotgun website

4)After I and others responded to these remarks about residential schools, and locking up the Indians, Ms.McMillan also put up two photoshopped images that are in what could only be described as disgustingly poor taste. One is the "GreyOwl" poster, and underneath it, there was a link, which if you clicked on it went to a photoshopped image of the Torture of Iraqis by US Soldiers at Abu Ghraib. McMillan boasted on the Shotgun, that she hoped that by posting these pictures she would cause me economic hardship and deprive me of financial opportunities to speak or write in the future. ( i.e. malicious intent on her part is thus proven)

5)Ms.McMillan is the paid webmaster for the Western Standard Shotgun Blog - the Only Conservative Magazine in Canada.

6) Ms.McMillan has been a member of The Blogging Tories, a political blogging activism group dedicated to supporting the conservative party of Canada almost since it's inception and according to it's co-founder (see below) is indeed "The blogroll for the Conservative Party of Canada."

7)Ms.McMillan's artwork - "The Libranos" Poster has been modified slightly and then held up in Parliament by CPC Members of Parliament, viz. Staff Of The Western Standard

8) Ms.McMillan is currently a paid bloggist for the CBC Roundtable, blog discussion group concerning the election, ostensibly there representing a particular demographic of Canadians, and although she purports to have no political affiliation, her membership in the Blogging Tories, and her involvement with the Western Standard (Published, Owned and Operated by a former candidate for the Canadian Alliance Party of Canada/former incarnation of the Conservative Party of Canada, no less) seems to belie this claim. She was also recently the STAR of the Western Standard Fundraising Cruise for Conservatives Across Canada last month.

Gin & Tonic is a blog that was recently booted from the Blogging Tories Blog Alliance. When she remarked about it, the co-owner of the Blogging Tories said : "Dissent? You stated that you no longer support the Conservative Party. And you expect to remain on a blogroll for the Conservative Party? "

Now, If the Blogging Tories is (as the co-owner of it acknowledged and so stated; "The BlogRoll For The Conservative Party", then what is kate McMillan of "No Official Political Affiliation" doing on this particular blogroll? Would she not be more aptly positions at the non-partisan blogging alliance?

9) Monte Solberg is a Canadian Conservative Member of Parliament who blogs. Since he has started his blog, he has on 3 different occasions mentioned Kate McMillan's blog, and directed traffic to her blog from his own blog. On at least one occasion he has said that Ms.McMillan is a "blogging friend who inspires him". On another occasion, most recently, he claimed that she was one of "the steel in the spine of the Canadian conservative blogosphere." (among others)

10)Several months ago I wrote to Monte Solberg and asked him and other members of the Conservative Party of Canada's leadership, in light of Kate McMillan's various remarks about Angolans, "Jap Bastards" Aboriginals, Residential Schools, Immigrants, and so forth, why it was that he promoted Kate McMillan's blog, when it contained such sentiments. We recieved next to no response. Some of us followed up with letters to Inky Mark, as well as to the Party Whip, and Stephen Harper Himself to ask why a member of the CPC Caucaus was promoting this blog, and we again got next to no response. A form letter from Harper's office, but that was it.

Now, guilt by association is indeed a unfair logical fallacy if indeed that is what is going on here. However, we are not saying that:

Monte Solberg is a self-proclaimed friend of Kate, a woman who has said these nasty things.... which must mean that Monte Solberg believes in these nasty things...and agrees with her...

NOR are we saying:

Kate McMillan has said these nasty and horrible things, and Kate McMillan is a Blogging Tory and thus All the Blogging Tories must agree with her, and believe in and agree with her about the Nasty Things that she has said....

What we are saying or rather asking is actually far more simple and yet, amazingly we can't get a straight answer from many of the people whom Kate McMillan IS and/or DOES associate with very directly...

Do you agree with Kate McMillan on the subject of:

a) Canada needing to recreate residential schools for indian children

b) Canada needing institutions to lock up the Indian Activists and apologists

It's one thing entirely to insist that because you don't agree with what somebody says, doesn't mean that you should be judged by their actions or words or ideas. That's not what's going on here, although that has been Monte Solberg's defence, in the podcast interview he did with Stephen Taylor, owner of the Blogging Tories.

It's another thing entirely to milk your association with such a person, promote such a person and their website, knowing full well that they have said repugnant things .. and then turn a blind eye to these things that they have said and done, and thus SANCTION such comments, then say "It's not fair to to Judge Me By The Company I Keep"

Here is an example of how a true "guilt by association" logical fallacy works.

Kevin Michael Grace is a writer who has ideas about immigration that are extremely different from most published columnists in Canada. Some of Kevin Michael Grace's columns have been published on neo-nazi and white supremacist websites.

Now, if one were using the logical fallacy of guilt by association to smear Kevin Michael Grace unfairly one would say "Look, the Nazis and the Skin-heads have published his articles... this must mean that Kevin Michael Grace is a Nazi. And by the way, this is a real world example, that has been done to Kevin Michael Grace, by Warren Kinsella. In this fashion Kevin Michael Grace, somebody who has been a dedicated defender of and supporter of Israel for 30 years or so, has been smeared by Warren Kinsella, and his good friend Ezra Levant.

In actual fact, of all the conservatives in Canada who I have ever spoken to, I have found Kevin Michael Grace to have not an ounce of anti-semetism, or anti-aboriginal bigotry, nor any actual racism within him in the perhaps 70 or so hours we have spoken over the phone during the past year. The reality is, that Kevin presents cogent arguments about immigration that I think deserve to be thought about... even if only on the basis of economics. I am a libertarian, so I am a 100% Open Borders person. But I also recognize that Socialism and wide-open Boarders system simply won't work. Or if it does manage to stumble along... won't work for long. Mathematically it doesn't hold up. In any case... Kevin has been attacked over and over and over again by this kind of specious "guilt by association" sort of argument.

As for me, and Monte Solberg, I had no problems with Monte Solberg until I realized to my horror that despite the fact that he and his staff were well aware he was promoting website that advocated the recreation of Residential Schools for Aboriginal Children, and "That Canada needs Institutions to Lock Up The Indian Activists and Apologists" --- that he simply didn't care, and that he was going to continue to promote her, and her website.

That's not merely "associating" with somebody or some website..
That's advocating for somebody. That's Promoting somebody and their website.
That is as much as giving one's sanction to their words, and their actions and their ideas.

So, Sorry, Conservatives, who wish to use the whole "It's unfair to judge Monte Solberg by this "guilt by association" thing.... Unless you can prove somehow that Monte Solberg, despite the repeated emails to his office, and to others in the leadership of the CPC (see here) was unaware of McMillan's remarks about Aboriginals, Angolans, the Ontario Separation Party, Jap Bastards, The MinuteMen Group etc... then you can not say Solberg was merely "associated" with McMillan and the Blogging Tories who have made these intemperate and inciteful remarks about various ethnic groups.

Solberg was doing far more than merely associating with these people.

Here are some definitions that might come in handy for the logically and vocabularly challenged

Association: The act of associating or the state of being associated

Endorsing: To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement

Approve: 1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction

Sanction: 1. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.
2. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice.
3. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval

Promote 1. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further
2. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity

Monte Solberg has not just "associated" with Ms.McMillan's blog, he has endorsed it, he has approved it, he has promoted it, and he has sanctioned it.

Monte Solberg 28 Minutes After SSM Law Was Made Into Law Via The Democratic Process He Participated In

2006-01-11T12:01:00.000-08:00

If you believe in the rule of law by democracy, and that rights are to be determined by nothing more than accumulating the largest number of votes on one side of a particular issue, then there's no use acting like this:

Your side lost the issue fair and square Mr.Solberg. Them's the breaks when you don't have a firm grasp of human rights, and as such don't even consider putting issues of human rights *up* for a vote.

Are the Blogging Tories An Arm Of The Conservative Party of Canada Officially Or Otherwise?

2006-01-11T11:10:00.000-08:00

FURTHER UPDATE!!! JAN18TH, CANWEST has NOW REPORTED ON THIS STORY - SEE FULL STORY HERE or HERE! This Story is Growing!

*****************************************************

UPDATE ! SEAN HOLMANS' The Public Eye Online Has Quite The Series Going On This -- See the Following article "BLINDED BY THE RIGHT" which discusses how the "Blogging Tories" was conceptualized as a "wing" and arms-length tool of the CPC to help deal with the campaign in a fashion similar to how bloggers in the US distracted the media from the real story on George W Bush''s very odd Military AWOL record. Scroll to the end of this article here to see the official denial by the CPC that there is ANY affiliation between the Blogging Tories and the CPC and consider BLINDED BY THE RIGHT again.

***********************************************************************

Correspondence & Communication with CPC Communications re Offical Position of the Conservative Party of Canada Regarding "The Blogging Tories"

Yesterday -- I had called the CPC HQ press room, asking them if the Blogging Tories were an OFFICAL ARM of the Conservative Party of Canada, considering that CPC MPS, and Candidates, and campaign managers and EDAS and such were participating... Here was the first response....

On 12 Jan 2006 at 20:42, Emma Welford wrote:

Wanted to let you know that while I do not have an explanation about how the Blogging Tories site works yet, you should be aware that you too are connected through this site. I was looking around and this entry (the 26th from the top) refers readers through the Blogging Tories to your blog. http://www.bloggingtories.ca/ Solving the native problem 2 Meegan has posted excerpts from the most insightful book written during the last twenty years on reserve pathologies in Canada. Unfortunately, she has disturbed those excerpts with her own
grafitti. The problems that afflict natives on reserves in Canada can be fixed. Flanagan shows us how to do so. It seems this may be an issue you would like to do some research on for yourself as well. Emma

Emma Welford
Conservative Press Office
emmawelford@conservative.ca
Tel: (613) 755-2191

(My response via email to Ms Welford is as follows : notice the time-date stamp: My call went in in the very early afternoon.. this email to me came in at 9:00 PM -- that's how long it took them to come up with *something* to respond)

"Are you seriously suggesting that I am a blogging Tory Emma?
Is that an answer you are willing to go on the record with?

Meaghan"

On 12 Jan 2006 at 20:55, Emma Welford wrote:

No, I was doing research for you on the Blogging Tories site! I was just surprised to see the link and thought if you didn't know about it, that you should. Just trying to help. I will get back to you when I know how this "blogroll" works.

My response

Emma,

I have been watching the "Blogging Tories" for over a year. I know all about the Blogging Tories.

The question is -- Does The OLO know about them, and what it is that they claim to represent, that CPC MPs as well as Campaign Managers and CPC Candidates participate, and that this *tool* acts as an aggregator for the Conservative Party of Canada, and occasionally includes what can be considered to be hate-speech...and what the OLO intends to do about it.

Just because some dimwit in the Blogging Tories defames me, and links to my blog, does not make me a *blogging tory*.I hope you understand this. Perhaps you should be talking with the Blogging Tories CPC Members, Candidates and so forth who actively participate in the Blogging
Tories, to get a better understanding of what the Blogging Tories is, and how it is being used to "promote" the Conservative Franchise.

Meaghan

On 12 Jan 2006 at 21:59, Emma Welford wrote:

Dear Meaghan,

Here is what I have found out about the Blogging Tories site. It is important to highlight that the Blogging Tories has no affiliation with the Conservative Party of Canada

This description is a product of my own informal research and I suggest you conduct further independent research if you have more technical questions.

The nature of the Blogging Tories site is akin to laissez-faire capitalism, where the comments and articles are written in a free market unfettered by censors. No one blogger's views
necessarily reflect the views of other bloggers, and ideas are exchanged freely. The Blogging Tories are not affiliated with any political parties, and act as a forum to raise and debate issues.
For more information specific to the Blogging Tories, please contact its founder, Stephen Taylor.

According to Wikkipedia:

"Blogging Tories is the name of a group of Canadian bloggers who come from the centre, centre-right and right-wing of the political spectrum. The Blogging Tories are composed of many individual blogs, whose content is then aggregated on the main Blogging Tories website.
Originally founded by bloggers Stephen Taylor and Craig Smith, the Blogging Tories have grown to include over 200 individual blogs. They are collectively viewed by over 30,000 people every
day. They are an important part of the larger Canadian blogosphere.

Blogging Tories has extended well beyond its original role as a collection of Canadian conservative blogs. It currently serves as a central hub for national conservative NGOs including the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National Citizens Coalition. For any questions beyond this, I suggest you contact Mr. Taylor. This will be the extent of the Conservative Party's comments on this issue.

Thank you so much for taking the time to contact us,

Emma

My Response a few minutes later:

Conservative Party of Canada
Communications, Election 2006
Re Monte Solberg's Promotion of Blog That Includes Hate-Speech And Inclusion in Blogging Tories Blog Alliance

Dear Ms.Welford.
In response to your final word on the subject:

As somebody who actually is probably far more of a laissezfaire capitalist than any of the "blogging tories" or any of the current members of the most recent so-called "Conservative Franchise"... I would only say this about your pronouncement in the capacity you have made:

--- as the wonderful Ayn Rand would say -- "You don't get to have your cake, and eat it too" Ms Welford.

However, since this is the offical position of the Conservative Party, and since Mr.Harper, Mr.Solberg, Mr.Prentice, Mr.Marks, and the Party Whip were unable to offer even the courtesy of even THIS commentary, when asked about these very questions months ago, I do thank you for being willing to go this far in offering this commentary.

Unfortunatley for Mr.Solberg, he has actually endorsed a blog that has promoted hate-speech towards Aboriginals, French-Canadians, Angolans, Japanese people as well as others ethnic groups.

I can understand that Mr.Solberg would not want to give comment at this time, during an election cycle, or at any time other time, nor would the party. However, he will be called to account for his multiple endorsements of, sanctions of, and promotions of this blog that does quite regularly indulge in racist hate-speech.

He himself has not just associated himself, his personal blog, and his party with this woman and her hate-speech, he has openly promoted her website that openly advocates and promotes such hate speech. There is a difference between mere "association" with somebody, and actively promoting something or somebody and their site, and racist speech, especially when that speech violates sections 318 and 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, and they have been alerted to the content of that hate-speech.

Mr.Solberg, Mr.Harper and Mr.Marks, and Mr.Prentice were told about this many months ago, and decided to ignore this issue. That is indeed unfortunate for Mr.Solberg, and for them, and for the Conservative Party.

This is not an issue that is going to go away.

That the Conservative Party of Canada has allowed CPC MPs to affiliate themselves with this group of Blogging Tories, and not in any way shape or form cautioned it's members of caucus, candidates, campaign managers, organizers and party officials participating to be wary of this sort of thing, has been very foolish.

In any case, I do thank you for at least - finally after 6 months of my attempting to get a simple response from the Conservative Party on this issue, in giving me a response, other than a form letter from Mr.Harper's office, and a befuddled sort of apology from Inky Marks staffer who was quite aghast that Mr.Solberg had been promoting the website of a woman who had been calling for the return of Residential Schools for Aboriginal Children.

You might want to look up the definition of Genocide under International Law - especially the portions concerning the removal of children from their families/parents to another group... and you will see why the promotion of the recreation of residential schools for Aboriginal children in Canada is one that is particularly troubling for somebody to promote within Canada, with the hate-speech laws that exist for us.

All it would take at this point is for the CPC and Mr.Solberg to assure me and other Aboriginals who have been made aware of Mr.Solbergs multiple endorsements of this particular website, that even though he promotes this particular blog, he does *not* sanction the idea of bringing back Residential Schools for Aboriginal Children or that of "Locking up Indian Activists" - and the matter could end politley and reasonably. But I am guessing that the Conservative Party of Canada is incapable at this point of admitting when it or it's members have made a mistake, misspoken, or done something stupid.

That's really too bad.

Best Regards
From somebody who used to actually be a strong sympathizer for the Conservative party

Meaghan
352-687-1247
407-574-3659

And Here's the punchline....
MY EARLY MORNING SURPRISE For EMMA and the OLO at STORNOWAY

Wow Emma See below

Things just get curiouser and curiouser....

This is from a registered Conservative party member, who I forwarded on our little exchange to, who claims to have a different story than yours about "The Blogging Tories".

Uh, Emma, are you and the Conservative Party still sure that what you wrote to me really *is* your *last* word on the subject, and that the "Blogging Tories* really is not an official/unoffical arm of the Conservative Party, and that it's inception, development, and growth have not at all been .. well, shall we say.. helped along by the official party.

Is that still your official story - and you are sticking to it? Or would you care at this point to try a different story?

Best Regards.

Meaghan
407-574-3659
PS I'm available 24/7 if you want to uh... "update* or modify your statement towards something that looks to be a little less .... hmmm... how shall I put this delicately?...dishonest or obfuscatory.

Looking forward to hearing from you - or not. Either way is fine by
me really.

M

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:26:23 -0800
From: (name/address redacted)
Subject: RE: Let me know
To: somena@comcast.net
Send reply to: (name/address redacted)

I have another fact you don't know.

I was personally and formally asked by the CPC to begin the blogging effort on behalf of the CPC. The blogging tory website is the result of that effort. I repudiated my involvement in the CPC. If the CPC continues to further deny that it is officially a result of their efforts, then I will
say otherwise. They began the effort to mimic the George Bush campaign's use of webblogs. I was directly told so by CPC MPs.
Respectfully,

********* (Redacted)

"The Full Monte" et al. enjoy a little satisfaction in a job well done

2006-01-05T09:17:00.000-08:00

Alleged Tory Internet scheme sparks call for probe

Allan Woods
CanWest News Service

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Click here to find out more!
QUEBEC -- Elections Canada has been asked to investigate the Conservatives after allegations that the party is overseeing a group that operates partisan on-line web logs.

Canada's election watchdog received a complaint Tuesday morning from a disaffected party member who claims the Tories tried to sway political opinion in cyberspace in the leadup to, and during, the election by setting up the popular "Blogging Tories" website.

The site appears to be a coalition of like-minded individuals who have met in cyberspace to share their political opinions and express their frustrations with Paul Martin's Liberals.

But a Victoria, man, Eugene Parks, and Toronto Tory dissident Carole Jamieson allege the venture may be in contravention of the Elections Act and third-party financing laws. They say it may have "unduly influenced the election coverage and potentially the outcome of this campaign."

"They're using a third-party agency to get elected," said Parks, a former Conservative supporter who now says he is an opponent. "It's pure hypocrisy."

Parks said in an interview Tuesday he was approached by senior Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy in December 2005 after a Tory caucus retreat in British Columbia and asked to head what he described as a pre-election initiative on behalf of the party.

"At the time I was somewhat willing, but my loyalty to the Conservative party was somewhat shaky," he said.

A Conservative party campaign official said Tuesday that there is "no connection" between the federal party and the website and chalked the complaint up to a party member who is still upset about the merger of the Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance in 2003.

Third-party election financing laws state that it is illegal for a group to spend more than $150,000 during an election period related to a general election. It can also spend no more than $3,000 of that money "to promote or oppose the election of one or more candidates in a given electoral district."

The law also says that the third party cannot bypass the spending restrictions by "splitting itself into two or more third parties."

The Blogging Tories website does not hide its political preference, and even includes some Conservative MPs, including finance critic Monte Solberg, among its members.

But Parks' allegation that the group was set up as a concerted effort by senior Conservatives to win the election casts the website in a controversial light.

"They're trying to make it look like these are individuals rather than a party effort," Parks said.

Parks said he split with the party in June because he was uncomfortable with what he said was a hostile tone among some party members toward French-Canada and aboriginals.

Parks passed on his information, which included e-mail exchanges, to Jamieson, a notorious former aide to former Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark. Jamieson called for Harper's resignation last September, saying that he did not have a chance of seizing power in an election.

Jamieson confirmed Tuesday that she had forwarded all the information to the chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley on Tuesday morning.
© CanWest News Service 2006

FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

2006-01-01T06:06:00.000-08:00

Frequently Asked Questions

A Work In Progress - Come back soon... as this will be developed

Archive: Liberals & Tories Engage in Blog O War

2005-12-01T22:47:00.000-08:00

Liberals, Tories engage in blog-of-war
Canwest News Service
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Byline: Carly Weeks
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: CanWest news Service

OTTAWA - Scott Feschuk, one. Jason Kenney, zero.

The Liberal party's newest blogger snags a big one. The Tory MP falls flat.

Kenney, MP for Calgary Southeast, blasted Feschuk, Prime Minister Paul Martin's speech writer Wednesday for ``controversial'' comments posted on his blog.

Kenney criticized Feschuk for insulting Canada's ethnic communities and called into question his support for multiculturalism in a hastily called press conference.

His comments stemmed from a blog entry posted by Feschuk on Tuesday evening. In it, Feschuk joked that former Conservative and founder of the Canadian Action Party, Paul Hellyer had ``grabbed hold of the campaign agenda'' by publicly announcing in September he believes in UFOs.

Feschuk went on to say that UFO invasions are a top priority of ``Canadians who are socially awkward Omni subscribers.''

Kenney came out swinging in defence of viewers of Omni television, which describes itself as a multilanguage, multicultural station. He demanded an apology from the prime minister and Feschuk on behalf of minority groups who would be offended by such comments.

``Omni subscribers represent the tremendous diversity of Canada's ethnic communities and they will be rightfully concerned and insulted by these kinds of pejorative remarks coming from the prime minister's own speech writer,'' Kenney said. ``What's he saying? That people from ethnic minorities who are the television viewers of Omni are paranoid? Are abnormal? Are ungrounded to reality? What's he saying? I think he has to explain himself and so does the prime minister because this is part of a pattern of comments that are disturbing people in ethnic communities.''

He compared Feschuk's comments to those of Liberal candidate Michael Ignatieff, who has been accused this week of making slights toward Ukrainians in the past.

Kenney said Feschuk's remarks ``exposed his true feelings for Canada's cultural diversity'' by calling viewers of Omni television as ``socially awkward people who believe in UFOs.'' He added that minority groups would show how upset they are by Feschuk's blog by gathering outside the Omni television studios.

But, if Kenney kept up with science fiction, he'd realize Feschuk was referring to Omni magazine, a now-defunct publication that published articles on UFOs and the paranormal and not the multicultural television network.

Feschuk wasted no time correcting Kenney on his blog, which is posted on the Liberal party's official website.

``Just want to take this opportunity to say hello to the hard-working person in the Conservative war room whose job it is to spend his or her day perusing this sorry blog for imaginary offensive references that Jason Kenney can get hysterical about. Keep sharp, stay on your toes,'' Feschuk blogged Wednesday at 2:44 p.m.

He added that in the spirit of ``interstellar goodwill,'' he would be willing to send Kenney a free Omni magazine subscription and tin foil hat in exchange for an apology.

After realizing the mix-up, Kenney said it was a mistake made in ``good faith'' and apologized if any viewers had misunderstood the issue.

``Yeah, sure, I'm sorry if on behalf of the people that complained that they were mistaken,'' he said.

He said his office received at least one e-mail from a concerned Omni television viewer and that he understands other viewers also voiced concerns over the issue. Since Omni magazine stopped publishing several years ago, it makes sense that Omni television viewers would take offence to Feschuk's comments, he said.

``I think it was a reasonable misunderstanding. I accept if Mr. Feschuk had something else in mind, a magazine that no longer exists. So be it,'' he said.

Taken Directly From Monte's Blog --- On How He Thinks He Can Help Indians

2005-07-27T07:18:00.000-07:00

July 27, 2005
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help
Its been said that those are the nine most frightening words in the english language. I think that to be a tad exaggerated, but it's funny because we know there is a lot of truth in it.

Yesterday I heard on the news that Claudette Bradshaw, our Minister of Labour, was going to meet with aboriginal leaders to talk about finding ways to help more aboriginals enter the workforce. Claudette Bradshaw is an extraordinarily nice person. I'm sure she wants to help. Here's the problem.

Getting more aboriginals into the workforce cannot be solved by Claudette, the Government of Canada, 29 buzillion bureaucrats or $160 trillion dollars. Figuring out how to get more aboriginals into the workforce will only ever be solved by aboriginals themselves, and to do that, in my humble little opinion, I think they need to change how they see themselves. Not only that, the government and non- aboriginals need to see them and ourselves differently as well.

Basically I'm saying that it's crazy for aboriginals to think of themselves first and foremost as aboriginals. I'm saying that they, and all the rest of us, have got to stop thinking about ourselves nearly so much in terms of race, religion, culture, geography, background and gender, because that is not the essence of who we are.

Actually we are people first and foremost and we all have unique skills, abilities and, most importantly of all, the power to choose. But when we start to think in terms of someone being synomous with their race, or gender, or background then we focus on how they are molded by those things instead of their ability to change and to break free from those things that hold us back.

I am conscious that I am sounding like the poor man's Dr. Phil right now, but what is the point of living in a free country, and having the power to choose our own destiny if not to be able to break free of our present circumstances and improve our own lives. No we can't choose our race or gender or the circumstances that we were born into, but we can decide whether or not we want to be defined by those things. That's where I think the government has gone way off the rails, rolled in the ditch and exploded.

Many people, especially people who are of aboriginal descent, have received a raw deal in the past, but I think we make a huge mistake when focus on that victimization instead of emphasizing that we are all moral free agents and that we all have the power to choose how we respond to our situation.

So yes the government can help. The government can help by not suggesting or hinting, even for a second, that because you are a person of aboriginal heritage, or come from a tough background that you cannot fully participate in all that a free society has to offer. Millions of immigrants to this country who come to us from some of the worst hell holes on earth have decided that their past is past and they have moved on. Secondly the government should be a resource to those who make the choice to not be defined by their circumstances, and not an enabler to those who do.

Canada isn't a great country because it has "free" healthcare, swell highways or nice scenery. Canada is a great country because it is a free country. A country where people can overcome their circumstances and chart their own course.

Claudette, if you want to help, that should be your message to the aboriginal leaders. In fact that should be every parent's message to their children, no matter how old some of us children happen to be, because it's a message that says that things can be a lot better than they are, and we all need to hear that once in a while.

*********************************************************************************

Let me re-write or paraphrase this to see if anybody who isn't Aboriginal understands why any Aboriginal reading this considers this little pontification by Monte to be patently absurd.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help
Its been said that those are the nine most frightening words in the english language. I think that to be a tad exaggerated, but it's funny because we know there is a lot of truth in it.

Yesterday I heard on the news that Monte Solberg our Minister of Finance, was going to meet with Unemployed people in Atlantic Canada to talk about finding ways to help more Atlantic Canadians to enter the workforce. Monte Solberg is an extraordinarily nice person. I'm sure he wants to help. Here's the problem.

Getting more Atlantic Canadians into the workforce cannot be solved by Monte, the Government of Canada, 29 buzillion Conservative Party of Canada bureaucrats or $160 trillion dollars. Figuring out how to get more white christian Atlantic Canadians into the workforce will only ever be solved by White Christian Atlantic Canadians themselves, and to do that, in my humble little opinion, I think they need to change how they see themselves.

Not only that, the government and non- Christian Non-White Non Atlantic Canadians need to see them and ourselves differently as well.

Basically I'm saying that it's crazy for White Christian Atlantic Canadians to think of themselves first and foremost as White Christian Atlantic Canadians. I'm saying that they, and all the rest of us, have got to stop thinking about ourselves nearly so much in terms of race, religion, culture, geography, background and gender, because that is not the essence of who we are.

Actually we are people first and foremost and we all have unique skills, abilities and, most importantly of all, the power to choose. But when we start to think in terms of someone being synomous with their race, or gender, or background then we focus on how they are molded by those things instead of their ability to change and to break free from those things that hold us back.

I am conscious that I am sounding like the poor man's Dr. Phil right now, but what is the point of living in a free country, and having the power to choose our own destiny if not to be able to break free of our present circumstances and improve our own lives. No we can't choose our race or gender or the circumstances that we were born into, but we can decide whether or not we want to be defined by those things.

So I think White Christian Atlantic Canadians who are all welfare bums, need to really get over thinking of themselves as Whites and Christians And Atlantic People and even Canadians.

That's where I think the government has gone way off the rails, rolled in the ditch and exploded.

Many people, especially people who are White and Christian, and From Atlantic Canada, have received a raw deal in the past, but I think we make a huge mistake when focus on that victimization instead of emphasizing that we are all moral free agents and that we all have the power to choose how we respond to our situation.

So yes the government can help. The government can help by not suggesting or hinting, even for a second, that because you are white Christian, unemployed Fisherman, from Atlantic Canada... or come from a tough background that you cannot fully participate in all that a free society has to offer.

Millions of immigrants to this country who come to us from some of the worst hell holes on earth have decided that their past is past and they have moved on.

Secondly the government should be a resource to those who make the choice to not be defined by their circumstances, and not an enabler to those who do. So I'm sorry but the White Christian Atlantic Fishermen, should just forget about that culture, and their relgion, and their history and their identity... because really. It's not helping them. They should be like the immigrants to Canada. See how well they are doing?

Canada isn't a great country because it has "free" healthcare, swell highways or nice scenery. Canada is a great country because it is a free country. A country where people can overcome their circumstances and chart their own course.

Monte, if you want to help, that should be your message to the White Christian Atlantic Canadian former Fishermen Community leaders whose people are living in desperate poverty.

In fact that should be every parent's message to their children, no matter how old some of us children happen to be, because it's a message that says that things can be a lot better than they are, and we all need to hear that once in a while.

Leave the past behind.
You aren't white. You aren't Maritimers. You aren't Christians. No More Jesus for You and Your Kids.... Assimilate into secular society! Stop even thinking of yourself as Canadians. Be more like Americans... you don't see Americans wallowing in this culture of defeat do you?

Wake up! Join the 21st Century and become prosperous like all the newer Immigrants to Canada have done!

And THAT will really solve the problems.

Now.. Aren't I brave for saying all these politically incorrect things?"

CPC Board Member of an EDA Quits Over Circulation of Anti-Aboriginal Racist Materials

2005-06-21T23:00:00.000-07:00

A Conservative Party Member Quits His EDA Over the Distribution of Racist Literature About Aboriginals

Made public at the Public Eye Online,

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Looking scary (for circulation)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:57:43 -0700
From: Eugene Parks
Reply-To: elparks@shaw.ca
To: elparks@shaw.ca

Activists in the CPC are puzzled by the lack of movement in the polls. While the Liberals have support numbers that are moving around like a yoyo, the CPC has been stuck at 29% for nearly two years. Why is that and what can be done about it?

At the core of the swing voters mind is a question of trust. Can the CPC be trusted to run a government fairly and equally towards all voters. Yes, the question of the "scary-side" of the CPC is part of the equation. Recently, I've been reminded how scary the CPC can look to the public by a circulated aboriginal policy statement supported by some conservative board members at the constituency level.

Tanis Fiss writes on aboriginal affairs for the Canadian Taxpayer Federation and her conservative board member brother Norm Fiss circulates policy statements that call for the dismantling of aboriginal ownership of reserve land and to transform the land into private ownership that any Canadian can acquire. In other words, remove the aboriginal communal claim to their land.

At the core of her argument is the wrongly held belief that. "the land is held in trust by the Canadian government." In other words, she believes that aboriginal land already belongs to Canada and so its government can do whatever it wants with it. In truth, aboriginal land is held in trust by the crown for aboriginal use - in exactly the same way that Canada is held in trust for Canadians. Just as aboriginals cannot set in law how Canadian land is managed unless done so through Canada, Canada cannot set in law how aboriginal land is managed unless done through reserve government. As equals under the crown, the relationship between Canada and Aboriginals is governed by treaty and not by their respective governments.

To the aboriginal, the denial of both the legal and historical claims to land as "A People" and a "Nation" is scary. The mere denial of existing ownership is the historical perspective that has lead to deadly conflict for centuries. As Canadian citizens we expect other trusts of the crown, such as other commonwealth countries, to respect us as a people and a nation. Likewise, aboriginals expect respect as a people and a nation. To do otherwise scares people.

So, why is there a unique denial of the same historical and legal situation of aboriginals.

Tanis Fiss' argument assumes that Aboriginal Title is not that of "A People" or a "Nation", but rather they are not a people with legal and historical title to their own land. The claim has no basis in law or history; her claim is an attitude and not fact.

If the CPC wants to rid itself of the "scary image", then it must disavow those attitudes that would deny legitimate legal and historical claims. The rule of law and respect for treaty commitments is a conservative value; the denial of respect for factual, legal, and historical relationships is not a conservative value.

Naturally, the public sees the double standard and finds it scary. Such scary perspectives are one reason that the swing voters are not moving in the CPC's direction. Similarly, when the public sees MPs sleuthing and making secret tape recordings, they don't look like someone you would trust. To govern a nation like Canada, double standards must be eliminated and not supported by those that seek power.

At this point in time, nothing can be done about the "scary" image until double standards are clearly identified and addressed. Movement in the polls will not happen if the public feels that the CPC cannot be trusted in positions of trust. The CPC's problem in the polls is of its own making and it must reform itself internally to get beyond people versus people politics.

This is a political opinion by

Eugene Parks

**************ONE RESPONSE**************

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PARTY LOYALTY
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:05:16 -0700
From: Betty Newton
To: Eugene PARKS
CC: Paul HOLMES

EUGENE,

I have sat through the numerous email rants you have circulated since I joined the EDA Board in January. Many of them I considered to be out of line and not germane to electing a Conservative MP for Victoria or a Conservative Government in Ottawa, but grant you we have the right of free speech in Canada.

However, I do question that you are doing anything positive on behalf of the Victoria EDA and its members, and should your rants, or as you care to label them your "political opinions", become known to the local media [and I understand the latest one has] then I feel you are doing a great disservice to the Victoria EDA, our local Candidate and the Conservative Party of Canada. In these trying times we are getting set upon sufficiently by the national media and do not need divisive material dispensed by our own Board Members.

If you feel it is your right to dispense this type of material then I feel you should resign from the EDA Board, so that it can only be perceived as your own personal opinion.

I also wish you would drop me from your emailing list, but I don't suppose there is a hope of that. However, I also have rights in this Country of ours and mine includes putting further email from you directly into my trash bin.

We need to all be positive and pull together for the good of our Candidate and our Party - this includes YOU as a Party member and an EDA Board Member.

Betty Newton

***********************

Eugene Replies

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Requests to resign
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:35:14 -0700
From: Eugene Parks
Reply-To: elparks@shaw.ca
To: elparks@shaw.ca

Correction in last paragraph: add word "against"

I have received requests from local conservative board members that I resign for expressing my blunt opinions which defend aboriginal status against those that call for further dismantling of aboriginal title.

For the record: My opinion is that having local conservative board members circulating material that can be interpreted as racially oriented is a disservice to the conservative movement and the call for responsible government. When that material is also apparently factually wrong, the situation becomes highly problematic. In contrast to me, several on the local board support such material and its circulation and have asked me to resign because of my strong and vocal objection. I disagree with the content and conclusions of the material and accordingly believe you are asking the wrong person(s) to resign.

Note well, at the national level of the CPC I have received very supportive and respectful responses from conservative members of parliament - even from those that I disagree with. Their interest in aboriginal issues and my position has been respectful and constructive.

In contrast, some local conservatives consider aboriginal concerns a lost cause, their culture a failure, and the solution is to make their land tradable to people like themselves. Others have expressed the opinion that the plight of some indigenous people is of their own making; some others that acknowledge the damaging relationship that Canada has historical had with aboriginals consider it tough luck and just too bad but not their concern.

I think the local CPC should be aware that the leadership of the CPC and its MPs unequivocal believe that aboriginal title and treaty must be protected and those contracts be solemnly respected. Aboriginal issues are serious and both dismissive and historically inaccurate perspectives are unhelpful - at best.

I believe that my position is more representative of true conservative values and that some of you are asking the wrong member(s) of the board to resign. Therefore, I will not resign but will instead continue to be highly vocal in defense of aboriginal title and against those that would mis-state facts and draw dubious conclusions in order to argue that the indigenous people of Canada should relinquish even more control over their own land.

Eugene Parks
Victoria

May 17th, 2005 - Email To Stephen Harper About The Issue Of CPC In Bed With Racists?

2005-05-17T15:33:00.000-07:00

My 2nd EMAIL TO STEPHEN HARPER

From: Meaghan Champion-Williams <somena@comcast.net>
To: "Harper, Stephen - M.P." <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: Is the CPC in bed with racists, or not?
Send reply to: somena@comcast.net
Date sent: Tue, 17 May 2005 05:53:08 -0700

Dear Mr.Harper's Staff

Thank you for your response. It has now been well over 10 days since I first asked Mr.Monte Solberg about his promotion of the "Small Dead Animals" blog, which is run by Kate McMillan, who has suggested that

1) Canada needs institutions to lock up Indian activists and apologists.
2) Canada needs to recreate residential schools for Indian children.

Let me remind you, that Mr.Solberg has linked to Ms.McMillan's website claiming that she is a "friend" who "inspires" him.

Mr.Solberg has not seen fit to respond to my queries.He has had time to blog about other matters, including criticism of the Liberals for being "nasty".

There is irony in that. Neither has there been a response from the CPC Party Whip, nor has Mr.Prentice, (Shadow Minister of Indian Affairs). Thus far, the only CPC MP that has responded has been Inky Mark, or his staff, and that was to forward my query on to you.

The email subject line asks a pretty simple question.

Is the CPC in bed with racists or not.

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Is this what Canadians have to expect from a Government run by the CPC? That even a simple question like that can't be answered with a straightforward "No, of coursethe CPC doesn't endorse genocide towards Indians, nor do we support individuals or publications in any form that promote such ideas"

Tell me, is that so terribly difficult for Mr.Solberg, or an official representative of the CPC to say?

I'm amazed.

I watched and waited on-line for ONE single CPC supporter to repudiate the genocidal suggestions of Kate McMillan. Aside from Norm Spector, there was not a single one. In fact, I now have a list of several CPC supporters on-line who have defended these comments openly and proudly.

Incidently, Norm Spector was banned from the Western Standard Website because like myself, he objected to bigotry from Mr.Levant's chosen contributors to the publication. You can believe what you may about me, and my political biases, but please don' t try to tell me that Norm Spector's objection to the bigotry that is prevelant in the CPC blogging world is based on partisanship and feigned "outrage".

Mr.Spector is definatley not a fan of the Liberals, and yet he too was concerned enough about racism and bigotry within CPC ranks to object.

This is not an issue that is simply going to go away.

I look forward to some kind of a response from the CPC on this matter that doesn't not include rationalization, justification or a mere form letter from Mr.Harper'sOffice.

Thank you

Meaghan Walker-Williams
On Time Process Service
www.ontimeprocessservice.com
10 Pine Course Way
Ocala FL 34472
352-687-1247

> CC Antonia Zerbsias, Toronto Star
> CC Patrick Martin, Globe and Mail Comments Editor
> CC CBC, The National
> CC Vaugn Palmer, Vancouver Sun
> CC Seamus O'Regan, Canada AM
> CC Jean LaRose APTN
> CC Chief Stewart Phillips, BC Union Of Indian Chiefs
> CC Phil Fontain, AFN & Regional Chiefs

Email Alerting Monte To the "Ontario Separation Party" Thing...

2005-05-13T12:43:00.000-07:00

To: solbem@parl.gc.ca
Date: May 13, 2005 4:47 PM
Subject: Ontario Separation Art? Inspiring?

Hello Monte,

I know that you are probably really busy with all that Parliament stuff and everything. Er... wait... since the non-confidence thingy there hasn't been any parliamentary business...

Well, in any event, I wonder if you have had the time to think about the questions I asked you about your "inspiring" "friend" Kate McMillan and her "Small Dead Animals" blog which you so lovingly promote on your website.

In case you haven't had a chance to zip on over there, I guess you haven't see the following
since my last missive.

Have you seen the blog posta about your pal Kate's "Ontario Separation Party" which she says is "dedicated to removing Ontario from Confederation, with or without their consent"

Do tell me, pray do Monte, Is this what "inspires" you?

I'm curious about how the Ontario people will react to this. I don't think they will think it's very funny.

Let's find out, shall we?

Cheers

Email To CPC MP Jim Prentice CPC Critic of Indian Affairs

2005-05-11T16:28:00.000-07:00

From: Meaghan Champion-Williams <somena@comcast.net>
To: prentice.j@parl.gc.ca
Subject: CPC Concerns
Send reply to: somena@comcast.net
Date sent: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:34:39 -0700

Hello, I was speaking to somebody in Mr.Prentice's office who suggested I email this, with my concerns for Mr.Prentice's attention.

The following is a link to a website which documents Mr.Solberg's comments regarding his 'inspiring friendship" with a woman who has openly, proudly and unashamedly advocated for Canada to lock up Aboriginals and their children.

http://blankouttimes.blogspot.com/2005/05/in-which-pooh-wonders-if.html

Here is Monte's blog page: Talking about his inspiring friendship with Kate McMillan.

http://www.montesolberg.com/2005/05/my-blogger-friends-inspire-me.htm

Here is the link to the comments by Kate McMillan about Aboriginals

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001100.html

In which she proposes that Canada recreate residential schools for Aboriginals

And here.... is her website remarks about Locking up Aboriginals

"I changed my mind. We don't need residential schools for those little 4 year olds running the streets of Saskatoon late at night. We need institutions to lock up the Indian activists and apologists"

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2004/12/normans_spectat_9.html

She also has some pretty interesting comments and website pages about "removing Ontario from Confederation, with or without their consent"

Scroll thru the news on Blank Out Times for more details.

The "Libranos" artwork which Joe Volpe was upset about, was actually created by Ms.McMillan originally. Her artwork about the "Ontario Separation Party" has yet to receive media attention however.

I have waited for a SINGLE CPC supporter in 4 months to repudiate the proposal by Ms.McMillan about residential schools, or "making institutions to lock up aboriginals".

Not once.. in 4 months, (aside from Inky Mark's Staff a couple of days ago)
has a CPC person indicated that these remarks are repugnant.

But when it crosses over to a member of Parliament endorsing this womanand her website, which includes these remarks -- it seems very frightening to me.

Regards

Meaghan Walker-Williams
somena@comcast.net
352-687-1247

10 Pine Course Way
Ocala FL, 34472

Email Correspondence With Inky Mark's People

2005-05-10T16:39:00.000-07:00

Subject: FW: Racist Remarks
Date sent: Tue, 10 May 2005 09:50:10 -0400
From: "Mark, Inky - M.P." <MarkI@parl.gc.ca>
To: "Harper, Stephen - M.P." <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca>
Copies to: <somena@comcast.net>
10 May 2005
To: Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
From: Glenda Garrison
Executive Assistant to Inky Mark, M.P.
Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette Parliamentary Office

Mr. Mark has asked that I forward this letter to you for your consideration and advice.

Glenda Garrison
Executive Assistant
Room 686, Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

t | 613.992.3176
f | 613.992.0930

www.inkymark.com

-----Original Message-----

From: Meaghan Champion-Williams [mailto:somena@comcast.net]
Sent: May 9, 2005 10:48 PM
To: Mark, Inky - M.P.
Subject: Racist Remarks

Hello Mr.Mark,

I see that you took great offense at the remarks of Reg Alcock the other day.
I can understand your ire. I too have had racist people make disgusting remarks,
and been amazed at how such people making those remarks fail to apologize or recognize their error.

For instance, that "Libranos" artwork, which is so popular amongst the CPC was originally put together by a well-known blogger named Kate McMillan. Indeed, Ms.McMillan is considered to be an "inspiring friend" of Monte Solberg, per
Mr.Solbergs recent remarks on his blog.

The odd thing however is that Ms.McMillan, the darling-diva of the Canadian
Conservative Blog World, and featured Commentor on Ezra Levant's Western
Standard Magazine website has been known to make pretty disgusting remarks.

For instance. She has claimed both

A) Canada needs institutions to lock up Aboriginal Activists and Apologists

and

B) Canada needs to recreate residential schools for Aboriginal children.

What's really funny Mr.Mark is that not one of your conservative friends has repudiated her remark. Indeed, such remarks have been openly and proudly defended. So much so that her artwork is being passed around in the House of Commons by conservative MPs and Monte Solberg is proudly promoting her and her blog on his website.

Tell me Mr.Mark, since you are obviously not a fan of racism, Do you agree with the sentiments she expressed. I have written to Stephen Harper, as well as to the CPC Party Whip, and Monte himself. I have received no response thus far.

So now, I am writing to you.

Does your party endorse and support genocidal racists like Kate McMillan?

If not, why are members of your party, including members of parliament promoting her and her website and claiming to be "inspired" by them?

Please do let me know.

Thank you kindly

Meaghan Walker-Williams

CC Joe Volpe, Reg Alcock and CBC The National

Mr.Harper's Only Response - May 10th, 2005

2005-05-10T16:33:00.000-07:00

On 10 May 2005 at 14:24, Harper, Stephen - M.P. wrote:

From: Harper, Stephen - M.P.
Date: May 10, 2005 1:24 PM
Subject: RE: Is the CPC in bed with racists, or not?

Thank you for your e-mail message to Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition. Your views and suggestions are important to us. Once they have been carefully considered, you may receive a further reply.

*Remember to include your mailing address if you would like a response.

If you prefer to send your thoughts by regular mail, please address
them to:

Stephen Harper, M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Mail may be sent postage free to any Member of Parliament.

You can also reach Mr. Harper by fax at: (613) 947-0310

And I ALSO got it in French! YAY! The CPC Is Bilingual!

Merci d’avoir écrit à Stephen Harper, le chef de l’opposition officielle. Votre opinion est importante pour nous. Lorsque nous l’aurons étudiée avec soin, nous pourrons vous faire parvenir une réponse.*N’oubliez pas d’inclure votre adresse postale si vous voulez recevoir une réponse. Si vous préférez nous écrire en utilisant les services postaux régulièrs, veuillez le faire au :

Stephen Harper, député
Chef de l’opposition officielle
Chambre des communes
Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6

Vous pouvez écrire sans affranchissement à tous les députés fédéraux.
Vous pouvez également joindre M. Harper par fax au (613) 947-0310.

Follow up Email after I recieve no response at all from Monte Or his staffers to my open letter

2005-05-09T12:36:00.000-07:00

After No Response within over 24 Hrs to my Open Letter To Monte, which I CCd to Joe Volpe who had been having a fit over the Libranos Poster... I followed up my email to Monte with the following:

To: solbem@parl.gc.ca
Date: May 9, 2005 10:08 AM
Subject: No word?

Hello Monte,

No word on your "inspiring" friendship with a woman who advocates genocidal policy towards Aboriginals?

Come now Monte, you are not a man of few words. You must have something to say about your "inspiring friend" Kate McMillan.

Or, is it possible that your silence means that you agree with such sentiments as "Canada needs institutions to lock up Aboriginal activists and apologists"?

I confess, that when Ms.McMillan first wrote her bizarre ideas about Aboriginal Peoples that I thought conservatives would be very quick to correct her, or disagree. Nobody did. The silence on this was *deafening*.

Perhaps made more so by the fact that your pal Ezra Levant, had banned an Aboriginal woman who objected to the comments by your friend Kate, from posting further.

Do you want to leave the impression that you support that sort of thing Monte?

Please let me know, soonest

CC Openly sent Amar Bajwa, Special Assistant to Hon.Joe Volpe Liberal Party of Canada

Email Correspondence with Rob Nicholson, CPC Party Whip

2005-05-08T12:15:00.000-07:00

To: Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca
Date: May 8, 2005 5:19 AM
Subject: Fwd: Is the CPC in bed with racists, or not?

Attn Mr.Nicholson, I thought you might be interested in the following.
Could you please state your position on this as well. For the record.
Do you agree with sentiments like "Canada needs institutions to lock
up Aboriginal activists and apologists"? Do you support Mr.Monte
Solberg's chummy friendship with the woman who has promoted such
ideas? Thank you Kindly

I attach a copy of the email I just sent to Stephen Harper on this same subject.

Email To Stephen Harper, May 8th re Solberg's Sanction/Endorsement of Small Dead Animals

2005-05-08T12:09:00.000-07:00

To: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
Date: May 8, 2005 5:08 AM
Subject: Is the CPC in bed with racists, or not?

Hello Mr.Harper,

I thought you might be interested in taking a look at the following series of articles

The first few articles on these blogs deal with comments made by Monte Solberg, in which he sings the praises of "Kate McMillan", a Sask blogger who made comments recently to the effect that

"Canada needs institutions to lock up Aboriginal activists and apologists..."

She also proposed that Canada re-create Residential Schools for Aboriginal Children, although she now seems to understand that this is perhaps not a very good idea.

In any event, Mr.Solberg praises Ms.McMillan and claims that she "inspires" him.

I am curious Mr.Harper about what one is to make of all this.

Tell me, does the CPC endorse such attitudes and policies towards Aboriginals? What sort of "institutions" would Aboriginal people look forward to being locked up in, should the CPC win the next election? How long would Aboriginal people be "locked up" in said "institutions" and what will be done to them?

I am CCing this email to a few friends and interested parties in these events. It would be very helpful if you, or somebody in your office would go on the record as denouncing both these kinds of genocidal policy suggstions by Ms.McMillan, and Mr.Solberg's association with such a person.

I will naturally also include this email to you, on upcoming blog entries, along with your response, if any.

Cheers

Open Letter To Monte Correpondence May 8th, Re McMillan and His Endorsement/Sanction and Promotion Of Her Website

2005-05-08T03:50:00.000-07:00

To: solbem@parl.gc.ca
Date: May 8, 2005 3:41 AM
Subject: Open Letter Re "Inspiring Friends"

Hello Monte

I wonder if you could take a look at a few things

I pose to you the following 2 questions:

A) Do you agree with the sentiments of Kate McMillan in proposing that Canada needs to recreate residential schools for Indian children? (She did propose this, although she seems to have realized it was not a good idea with the above post)

B) Do you agree with the proposal of Kate McMillan that Canada needs institutions to lock up Indian activists and apologists?

What's very interesting Monte, is that not one CPC person in the blogging world will go on record as saying they disagree with these sentiments or statements by your "inspiring" friend, Kate McMillan.

Will you publicly denounce these statements made by your "friend" or do you think that these are valid/reasonable suggestions to make about Aboriginals.

I look forward to hearing from you.

PS....

I'm just wondering - if you are going to support the statements of McMillan, exactly what kind of institutions should be created - where etc.. and how long Aboriginals should be locked up in them? What will be done to them, in these institution? Any ideas?

Just want to know some of the finer details of these "grand plans" for Aboriginals by devotees of the CPC.

Thanks.