Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The outrage

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 3:38pm - 38 Comments

Canadian Press talks to cancer victims about the Raitt tape.

Cancer survivors and their supporters say they’re astounded Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt would describe the shortage of isotopes used in cancer tests as a “sexy” issue. They are demanding she either resign – or be fired – for making what they describe as a cold, selfish political calculation that involves people who are suffering… Norma Fisher, who has survived two bouts of cancer in Kemptville, Ont., said at the very least the minister should issue a public apology. ”I’m trying to be fair, but most people realize the trauma that people go through when they have cancer and are sensitive to it,” said Fisher, who helps counsel 40 others who are battling the disease.

No apology was delivered during QP just now. More on that in a bit.

Tags:

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

    Paraphrasing Jarrid:

    I, for one, am sick of cancer survivors playing politics during this serious time.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

      I think they will also add something like this: "They are only quoting 2 people in this article (and both are probably Liberals – someone dig up dirt on them) – they do not represent the thousands of cancer patients and organizations representing them that know we are doing a great job trying to find alternative isotopes for treatment sometime in the future".

    • Dave

      I, for one, am sick of politicians playing cancer during this serious time.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Murray Brewster talks to a few cancer patients, presents Lisa Raitt's "sexy" adjective completely out of context, and (surprise, surprise) is able to generate "outrage".

  • Riley Hennessey

    She should apologize for a private comment? Do you think she enjoys cancer or something? She screwed up and she and her team are responsible for the documents they lost/left out in the open.

    But insinuating she somehow enjoys cancer or intentionally disrespects cancer victims….

    What kind of journalism are you promoting here? Partisan commentary or actual reporting?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

      Actually, he's showing what cancer patients and supporters think of a minister who views a health crisis as an opportunity for career advancement, to quote Michael Ignatieff.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

    I rest my case.. thanks C, for making the point for me.. you guys are utterly predictable.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      Too bad you made your "prediction" after I made my comment, not before. Also, I would point out that your "prediction" did not actually predict anything that I said.

      In a general sense, though, I suppose it is "predictable" that a guy like me would point out the obvious shoddy methodology and overt bias of Mr. Brewster's shoddy excuse for journalism.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

        Actually.. I DID make the prediction before you… I was just adding/editing it… when you popped your comment in there. It remains the same though that Conservatives will come up with "the media is biased" angle almost any time one of their own is in trouble ad cant be defended on their own merits.

        You're occasionally better then that CR, but not this time. Even you should be able to agree that Raitt at the very least should be issuing an apology to cancer survivors for her callous remarks.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

        Actually.. I DID make the prediction before you… I was just adding/editing it… when you popped your comment in there. It remains the same though that Conservatives will come up with "the media is biased" angle almost any time one of their own is in trouble, and cant be defended on their own merits.

        You're occasionally better then that CR, but not this time. Even you should be able to agree that Raitt at the very least should be issuing an apology to cancer survivors for her callous remarks.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

          You should read what Radwanski has to say about this whole nonstory. Again, it is nothing but a trivial distractor from more serious concerns about the Chalk River facility itself.

          I have no problem with holding the Government accountable for its alleged mismanagement of the Chalk River crisis. Also, I have criticized Raitt on this issue many times.

          I just object to the sort of blatantly partisan journalism that attempts to churn up synthetic outrage over a "shop talk" adjective from a private conversation taken out of context. This whole "story" is completely synthetic and irrelevant.

          The isotopes from Chalk River were used in a wide variety of medical tests, including certain cancer tests. To suggest that Raitt must apologize to cancer patients for her private use six months ago of an inappropriate adjective to characterize the media response to the Chalk River story is just more of your tedious partisan sausage grinding. Fortunately, you occasionally rise above that level.

        • Alex

          Seriously, Scott… you're trying to call out CR for being a partisan hack and being one of "those guys?" Take a look in the mirror dude.

          I'd have to say that of all the commenters around this place, CR is one of the most level-headed, non-ridiculous people here. Try chililng out before you pull the old "ready, fire, aim" approach.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            Thanks, Alex.

          • Blues Clair

            Sorry CR, notwithstanding your reputation meter, I'm sure the outrage these cancer's victims feel is geniune.

          • Blues Clair

            I probably shouldn't say I'm sure… but it is plausible, no? Anyways, CR aint' no hack… he just gets a little cranky on Mr. Wherry's threads.

          • Alex

            No prob, CR.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Your question is best left unanswered.

  • Anon

    Well, Harper did not apologise (at first) for suggesting Paul Martin supports child porn. So, this is true to form for that wretched piece of Polievre.

    • http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

      I don't think he ever actually apologized.

      For that or for saying that Paul Martin was involved in organized crime or for saying that Zytuk doctored the recording of Harper or for saying all of the Liberal leadership candidates were anti-Israel or for saying the Liberals supported terrorism because one MPs father-in-law was a witness in the Air India inquiry or … etc.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

    Well, Harper did not apologise (at first) for suggesting Paul Martin supports child porn.

    Actually, Harper never apologised for that. Never will.

    As you must know, geniuses never make mistakes…

    • Jon Pertwee

      ROTFL

  • Lawrence Garvin

    Is anyone else reminded of Spinal Tap?

    Nigel: "The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and.."

    Losing your audience? Play louder, scream harder, inject more hysteria… you'll never go wrong with that approach.

  • Wayne

    What would be hypocriticail would be if she did apologize. After all this was a private conversation between her and her aide and obviously you can't honestly apologize for something you meant at the time. I mean she could do a pseudo apology but it would be insincere at best and only a feeble attempt for political gain. Nope the only recourse is to to do her job fix the problem and leave the white noise for the hyper partisans. I am watching Stevie boy though because the obvious ploy is to throw her under the bus. But so far he has been loyal to his ministers and taken the heat as it were except for the ouright incompetent (Bernier). If he continues to stand by the minister it would take a great deal of courage – we shall see – if he does he is a better man than I am. because if it were me I would be greasing the skids. Then again maybe not after all she was a bright and shining start and a potential leader hmmmmm. Maybe if Stevie were the callous type he could use this to prevent a up and coming contender for his title. I Love Politics as the twists and turns boggle the mind.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Actually, you can. It's called learning.

    • http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com Ted

      So was she hypocritical when she apologized to Aglukkaq?

      • Wayne

        she apologized for dragging her into it

        • Jon Pertwee

          you wanna roll the dice on that one?

  • catherine

    Under the blaring headline Raitt refuses to apologize for calling cancer, radiation 'sexy',
    CanWest is reporting:

    Raitt, for her part, accused her opponents of spreading conspiracy theories

    Did I miss something? What are the conspiracy theories on this of her opponents? Is she referring to Conservatives as opponents now?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    David Akin's headline writer is obviously on crack, because Raitt never called cancer or radiation "sexy".

    • Michael

      Ummm.

      "But it's sexy," Ms. Raitt said. "Radioactive leaks. Cancer."

      Your critical reasoning skills are lost when filtered through subpar language skills. In what world DIDN'T she call cancer and radioactive leaks sexy??

  • sbt

    Personally, I took from that sentence that the issue (the Chalk River shutdown) is sexy because it involves radioactive leaks and cancer. And sexy to mean that it catches people's attention. She probably could have phrased it better.

    • Jon Pertwee

      like sensual? or seductive?

  • catherine

    Next up Raitt's comments on Jim Prentice and Alberta. Perhaps she feels that all her comments might as well come out before she apologizes.

  • Jenn

    I agree that most of this is partisan politics. I agree that her comments were months ago–before the isotope shortage actually occurred, although I gather she knew it might be/was coming.

    But would it kill her to apologize? "My private comments were ill-advised and I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I can assure you that I take the health of Canadians much more seriously than my inadvertently taped comments would suggest."

    There. Problem solved. Instead, we will have another week of this nonsense. Accountability, remember that?

  • Jason

    Death from a thousand, cancerous cold-cuts?

  • http://www.flacklife.com Bob LeDrew

    The Edmonton Journal headline is: "Raitt caught calling isotope crisis 'sexy' on tape:" Apparently Raitt's comment was that the crisis was "sexy…Radioactive leaks. Cancer." I assume she meant from a media angle. I don't think the headline is that out of line.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    I agree that the Edmonton Journal's headline is appropriate, for the reasons you cited. The headline Catherine referred to is sheer distortion.

  • catherine

    It seems Raitt thinks the isotope crisis is sexy because it involves radiation leaks and cancer.

    Any ideas on which conspiracy theories she was referring to and attributing to her opponents?

Previous

Next

From Macleans