Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

For your "And here's a lower place" files: Let's all fight over which party the accused rapists support!

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:55pm - 117 Comments

Seriously, this is just — horrible, depressing, totally uncalled for and the kind of thing that gives political black ops a bad name. The same goes for posting pictures of the accused with certain cabinet ministers – and really, that’s all ITQ has to say about that.

Tags: this post doesn't deserve a tag

More by kadyomalley

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I would be far more bothered to learn that the (once convicted, if convicted) gang rapists were in a position of authority and trust like a Scout leader or teacher or therapist or Sunday School teacher, more than a president or executive member of a political party's riding association.

And Brown deserves the jeers for getting into the mud to wrestle with the pigs. Is there any other way, besides dignified but outraged silence, to respond to the Kinsellar smears? Yes. Yes, there is. "Gang rape is a serious charge. The commentary that is out there already deserves no response except to be described as beneath contempt. I pray that the victim will recover as much as possible from the ordeal, and I trust the justice system will get to the bottom of these allegations. The accused have been suspended / evicted from the Party until we learn more. You will of course understand, out of respect for the justice system that now has an important job to do, that I will have absolutely no further comment." And even those last two sentences are appropriate only if it's your own party.
Stewart Smith

I was actually about to agree with Conservative friends that argue Kinsella must go. However a review of time stamps then indicated that the Brown interview came first, followed very quickly by the Kinsella posting. This seems confirmed in that the Kinsella posting refers to Brown, while the Brown interview makes no mention of Kinsella.
I am still not comfortable with Kinsella but the current Conservatives including the PM have proven that they will distort the truth to outragous ends and use their highly effective PR campaign to get their version out. As long as Kinsella is limited to attacking in response, I guess I can live with him. (A bit like having a goon you hate look after your favorite hockey player.)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Ethics aside, it seems to me the Liberals are missing a trick by siccing Kinsella onto stories like this, to "hit back" etc. For one thing, any party involved in spinning gang rape is going to disgust people like me, if not (apparently) many people; but the Liberals thereby forfeit the chance to take the high road. There should be a name for such a strategy (is there?). E.g. Sarah Palin relished the ethically questionable doubts raised about her family / pregnancy, to the point of not refuting them, because it gave her a stick to beat her opponents with: "they have stooped so low" etc. Well, the Bloc and Liberals could do the same with these incredibly low comments by Brown; but that would involve more than just peeling the hatchet out of Kinsella's hands: it would take a serious speech by Duceppe or Ignatieff, essentially calling the Tories out. A few of those would not only stop the Tories from doing this kind of thing, it would negate the need for Kinsella's thuggery. Unfortunately I don't think pious hoping that such offensive BS will disappear will do the trick, we need active anti-BS from our party leaders, aka leadership.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Ethics aside, it seems to me the Liberals are missing a trick by siccing Kinsella onto stories like this, to "hit back" etc. For one thing, any party involved in spinning gang rape is going to disgust people like me, if not (apparently) many people; but the Liberals thereby forfeit the chance to take the high road. There should be a name for such a strategy (is there?). E.g. Sarah Palin relished the ethically questionable doubts raised about her family / pregnancy, to the point of not refuting them, because it gave her a stick to beat her opponents with: "they have stooped so low" etc. Well, the Bloc and Liberals could do the same with the Tory 10-center and now these incredibly low comments by Brown; but that would involve more than just peeling the hatchet out of Kinsella's hands: it would take a serious speech by Duceppe or Ignatieff, essentially calling the Tories out. A few of those would not only stop the Tories from doing this kind of thing, it would negate the need for Kinsella's thuggery. Unfortunately I don't think pious hoping that such offensive BS will disappear will do the trick, we need active anti-BS from our party leaders, aka leadership.

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

I completely agree that we need active anti-BS from our party leaders. However, I don't think that the Liberals sicced Kinsella onto this story any more than the Tories sicced Brown. Both men were acting autonomously.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Good point. In which case they should both be publicly flogged.

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

Hear hear!

http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blogs/national/inside-the-queensway/ Kady O’Malley

Well, the Bloc and Liberals could do the same with the Tory 10-center and now these incredibly low comments by Brown; but that would involve more than just peeling the hatchet out of Kinsella’s hands: it would take a serious speech by Duceppe or Ignatieff, essentially calling the Tories out.

Actually, isn’t that pretty much exactly what Ignatieff – I know, of all people; I’m kind of stunned too – did in response to the attack on the Bloc Quebecois? That was probably one of the most — okay, only — politically smart things he’s done since taking over as leader; he didn’t escalate the situation, but he did draw attention to what he — and, I suspect, a lot of other people — saw as crossing the line. Unfortunately, until we come to some sort of general collective agreement on exactly where that line is, I’m not sure if we’ll make much headway discouraging politicians – and their operatives – from tiptoeing over it. It’s not entirely their fault, though — at the moment, the only way you can be sure you’ve gone too far is when you’re already there.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Very well said, and too true, I suspect ("when you're already there," as we seemingly are). I missed Ignatieff's response on the Bloc 10-center, have sort of been trying to tune the whole thing out; but kudos to him from an ethical POV. From a Machiavellian POV, though, I wonder if attacking your opponent for an indefensible attack on somebody else isn't far less effective than if one were the victim oneself, à la Palin: public sympathy is far more potent than public righteousness, alas. Still, I'm sorry I missed Ignatieff's response to the 10-center, since it does sound like the sort of thing we need to counter the rat infestation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

It would be great to see Ignatieff publicly tell Kinsella that his services (at least the service in question here) are not welcome.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Wow. I'd sure like to know the reason my comments were yanked.

Anybody?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

When will the carnage end?

Arguing the finer points of how to best handle the who-to-blame politics of an issue like this, is really just a disservice to the bigger non-political issue.