The Ontario Medical Association has released an ad on behalf of its distraught, down-and-out members: Ontario’s Doctors. Watch Nick make fun of it in this latest episode of my web series, Savage Rants
In this latest episode of my Savage Rants web series I make fun of Justin Trudeau, Peter Mansbridge, and the National’s Behind-the-Scenes coverage of Justin’s first day as Canada’s Prime Minister. Enjoy!
Happy Remembrance Day!
Please enjoy my latest episode of Savage Rants where we look at some of the worst MPs who lost their seats and the reasons we’re glad they were defeated. Also, in honour of our veterans, watch me rip one of the worst Veterans Affairs Ministers in history, Julian Fantino, a new you-know-what.
Enjoy
Here is the latest episodes of my web video series ‘Savage Rants’, this time about the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement and the ridiculous things our leaders are saying about it.
Let’s discuss the so-called niqab controversy. Yes, apparently a woman choosing to wear something over part of her face at a citizenship ceremony is an actual controversy in Canada in 2015 since, depending on which poll you believe, somewhere between 67% to a whopping 88% of Canadians are in favour of banning niqabs from being worn at these ceremonies. By the way, in case you have been living under a rock, this is a niqab.
First, I think it is important to note that anyone attending a citizenship ceremony must show identification when entering the event. In order to look like one’s photo ID, you would have to remove anything covering your face, thus forcing any niqab wearer to do so at that time. So this has nothing to do with safety.
No, Canadians actually have a problem with people wearing them during the citizenship ceremony itself, after they have proved who they are. The editorial board at Sun News agreed with, and defended, this view in an op-ed piece from two weeks ago, arguing that, “it is not racist, nor is it too much to ask, that at the moment an individual takes the oath of citizenship, they do so in full view of their fellow citizens.”
To which I reply, it IS too much to ask. I don’t care if the majority of Canadians, again at least according to the polls, are with you. You’re racist, or sexist, or both, but either way, if you want to ban the niqab you’re not being terribly Canadian.
Let’s start with the Sexism. Yes, there are some Muslim countries that force women to cover themselves, and there are others that don’t. In this country, we do not accept the idea that women should be forced to wear particular items of clothing. However, in this country a woman chooses to wear a niqab. In fact, it is her right to do so, protected by the Charter.
Besides, we have Canadian non-Muslims who love to tell women what they should and shouldn’t do: they’re the people who believe it’s not rape if the victim was a certain level of drunk and that if you become pregnant you should become a slave to the state, forced to carry to term with no option or choice of an abortion. Many of these same “people” claim to support women by being anti-niqab. Don’t believe them. This is just another way for them to limit the freedom of women in this country. Don’t let them.
As for the racism, let’s turn now to Canadians most prominent Phil Spector look alike, Rex Murphy:
Rex Murphy: “The new citizen could say I prefer to wear the Niqab but this is a new country for me so just for a few minutes, during the citizen ceremony, I’ll give a pass on my preference, just in the interest of civil harmony.”
Having seen the segment, I know Mr. Murphy doesn’t care who wears a niqab at what ceremony, and that he sees this issue as a waste of time. However, the idea that someone should not wear something that does absolutely no harm to anyone else to maintain what Rex calls “civil harmony” is, to me, abhorrent.
Arguments in favour of so-called “civil harmony” were used by American Southerners after their Civil War to get the rest of the country to turn a blind eye to horrible ‘Jim Crow’ laws put on their African American populations. The same thing happened with desegregation in the South , with white southerners claiming integrating schools would destroy social order. Social order, civil harmony, potato, potaato.
I’m sorry, but ‘civil harmony’, or the majority of people feel icky about something, is not justification for banning stuff. If banning the niqab is racist, what does it say about Stephen Harper and his Conservatives who have made this an election issue by promising to ban it?
Andrew Coyne: “I don’t think the Conservative government is anti-Muslim, I think they’re not necessarily displeased if those who are line up behind them…they have had opportunities…eventually you say that is not accidental.”
I think Andrew Coyne is correct, but I don’t think he goes far enough. The fact that they’ve done nothing to tone down the rhetoric demonstrates that if they aren’t full blown racists, the Conservative Party of Canada is not below using racism to win elections.
And at the end of the day, this is all this stupid argument is about: Conservatives, Sun News, and sexist/racist monsters, are trying to distract voters from real issues with this niqab crap. Again, I’ll let Mr. Murphy explain:
Rex Murphy: “Hamlet once spoke of finding a quarrel in the straw. We have one of those right now in Canada, the so-called niqab debate. It’s vastly overinflated, politically inspired, media driven, and a diversion from issues of broader consequence and genuine significance.”
If you are one of these Canadians who want to stop these women from wearing what they are comfortable in at their own citizenship swearing-in ceremony, ask yourself: why you are bothered by it? How does it affect you whether or not someone else wears a niqab at a public event? I would argue it doesn’t affect you at all.
So when the Sun, in that same op-ed, wrote that people who want to ban niqabs “have a right to their honesty held views without being insulted”, they are only half right: yes, they have the right to these views, but they better be prepared to be insulted by the rest of us and called out for what they are: sexists or racists, but either way, completely un-Canadian.
In the latest episode of Savage Rants I look at the best (or worst) of the interviews Peter Mansbridge held with each party leader vying to win next month’s Canadian Federal Election.
Last week’s CNN Republican Presidential Debate was three hours of pandering, insults, policy craziness, and moral hypocrisy. It was hilarious. If you missed it, or are just super curious about what I thought of it, I’ve pulled out what I think were the interesting bits, just for you. Therefore, without further ado, I present the three big themes I noticed from the debate, as well as the best and worst lines of the night.
For CNN, all questions came up Trumps
Last month’s FOX News Republican Presidential Candidate viewership was 24 million people. Those are finale-episode-of-Survivor numbers, which is particularly ridiculous when you compare those numbers to the same debate four years ago: 3.2 million. The ratings spike can be summed up by one word, Trump, and, based on the number of questions Mr. Trump received, it was clear CNN was trying to get some of their own Donald ratings magic. If the question wasn’t directed to Trump, the moderators had the other candidates answer questions about Trump.
For example, the first question of the night was posed to Carly Fiorina, “Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?” This was followed by a direct question to Trump, and then a third question to Jeb Bush, again about Trump: “Mr. Trump has repeatedly said that the 100 million dollars you’ve raised for your campaign makes you a puppet for your donors. Are you?”
This was the moderators’ playbook for most of the night. A few highlights:
I want to emphasize that CNN wasn’t particular easy on, or helpful to, the Donald. More like they thought that the best television, rather than the best debate, would occur if Trump fought with the other candidates and vice-versa. While they’re probably not wrong, it doesn’t bode well for the future of American televised debates if the goal is to garner ratings, since to get those you have to invite guys like Trump.
Trump is kind of an asshole
Speaking of Trump, as a comedian I take great joy (read: laughter) from the way that he speaks, particularly the way he says “China” or “English” in that high-pitched way that just screams racism in a way I recognize but can’t fully put my finger on. However, as funny as he is, Donald can be kind of a dick, often for no reason, and it was particularly obvious in this debate.
He called out fellow candidate Rand Paul not once, but twice, for essentially being less popular then him, claiming that, as the 11th highest rated candidate with only 1% of the Republican primary vote, he shouldn’t even be on the stage with him. You can see the second one below.
Also, despite Mr. Paul having never made fun of Trump’s appearance, Trump told the audience that he “never attacked (Rand Paul) on his look, and believe me there is plenty of subject matter right there.”
In Donald’s defence, some of Trump’s dickishness was a result of answering questions that were obviously designed to put him in conflict with other candidates. Still, it’s hard to ignore how much of a prick he comes off as when the moderator asked Carly Fiorina the following question:
“…Donald Trump said the following about you: “Look at that face, would anyone vote for that, can you imagine that, the face of our next President. Mr. Trump later said he was talking about your persona, not your appearance, please feel free to respond with what you think of his persona.”
Perhaps the debate moderators thought this would inflame Ms. Fiorina to go over and knock Trump down on his ass. Honestly, I was hoping she would, because what he said about her is inexcusable. It’s a terrible thing to call someone ugly; it’s a whole other bag of dog turds to say that being so makes them unqualified for a job that you, Donald Trump, a very unattractive American, are also vying for.
Finally, here’s a few of his more dickish quotes from the night:
Carly Fiorina is a Crazy Person
Carli Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and the only female candidate in the Republican Presidential field, is a crazy person. I don’t watch the undercard fights on these debate nights so I didn’t see Ms. Fiorina in the Fox debate with the less popular herd of candidates last August, but for this debate she made the big time, so I got to breathe her in and wow, shit smells crazy!
Here’s how she would deal with Putin and Russia:
“Having met Vladimir Putin I wouldn’t talk to him at all, we’ve talked way too much to him. What I would do immediately is begin rebuilding the sixth fleet; I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland; I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States; I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message.”
That message: let’s start World War 3. Seriously, that’s the only message Putin and Russia will hear if America were to start acting like that. If Ms. Fiorina wins the presidency, Americans better start sending their enlistment-aged sons and daughters up here to Canada or elsewhere before those draft letters start arriving in the mail. Here’s another fun Fiorina quote from the debate:
“I would like to link these two issues…Iran and Planned Parenthood. One has to do with the defence of the security of this nation; the other has to do with the defence of the character of this nation.”
Oh boy. Perhaps, in her deluded mind, these two things share a similar potential for harm to the United States. Let me assure you, however, that this is ridiculous, since one wants to destroy the great Satan that is the West and the other hands out condoms to college students.
In fact, if Carli Fiorina was truly looking for a link between the two the best place to find it is in how completely opposite their views are on most issues, particularly those related to women’s health. As an example, Planned Parenthood believes women should have control over their bodies, while the Iranian Ayatollah…let’s just say he thinks something else.
Finally, towards the end of the evening the candidates were all asked the same question: Which woman should appear on the 10 dollar bill? Rand Paul (Susan B. Anthony) and Scott Walker (Clara Burton, founder of the American Red Cross) had thoughtful answers while others, like Mike Huckabee (his wife) and Ben Carson (his mother), went for kitsch. Jeb Bush (Margaret Thatcher) and John Kasich (Mother Theresa) forgot that perhaps an American woman would have probably been the correct choice, but that’s still not as crazy as the answer Carli Fiorina gave:
“I wouldn’t change the ten dollar bill, or the twenty dollar bill. I think, honestly, it’s a gesture. I don’t think it helps to change our history. What I would think is we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group, women are the majority of this nation, we are half the potential of this nation, and this nation will be better off when every woman has the opportunity to lead the life she chooses.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with Ms. Fiorina that removing the male historical figure from a bill and replacing it with a female one is, primarily, a gesture rather than significant structural change from American women. However, I don’t agree with her that, for that reason, it shouldn’t be done. The history of civil rights struggles is filled with these kinds of gestures, and what is seen at one time in history as a placating gesture is often understood by future generations as the first steps to really include a marginalized group, in this case women, in the historical context of a nation. In other words, to dismiss entirely a gesture like this seems, to me, the decision of a crazy person.
Also, to Ms Fiorina’s view that women are not a special-interest group, I would reply by saying that, until they are treated as well as men in society, to ignore their own special interest status and power in organising as women would be to their own peril.
Best and Worst Lines of the Night
Best: Governor Chris Christie is “pro-life” in the right way:
“New Jersey is the first state in the nation that now says if you are a non-violent, non-dealing drug user that you don’t go to jail for your first offence, you go to mandatory treatment. You see, I’m pro-life, and I think you need to be pro-life for more than just the time in the womb. It gets a lot tougher when they get out of the womb. And when there’s a sixteen year old drug addict on the floor of the county lock-up, that life is just as precious as the life in the womb.”
Full disclosure, I fall in the so-called “pro-choice” camp rather than the so-called “pro-life” one. I’ve also seen the hypocrisy of these same politicians who identify as “pro-life” argue to defund or cut programs that help poor families, single-mothers, educate children with learning disabilities, and allow access to medical marijuana for kids who need it. It’s about time a conservative politician finally call out members of his own political persuasion for that hypocrisy on this issue. Go Christie!
Worst: Dr. Ben Carson’s plan for indentured servitude:
Part 1:
Part 2:
“After we seal the borders…people who had a pristine record, we should consider allowing them to become guest workers primarily in the agricultural sphere, because that’s the place where Americans don’t seem to want to work…and they have a six month period, and if they don’t do it within that six month period then they become illegal and as illegals they will be treated as such…I’ve talked to farmers and they said they can’t hire Americans to do the kind of job that I’m talking about…the individuals who register as guest workers they don’t get to vote, they are not American citizens, and they don’t get the rights and privileges of American citizens.”
Basically, Dr. Carson wants immigrants, no matter what their training, so long as they have no ‘record’, forced to do backbreaking agricultural labour for six month as guest workers with no rights or privileges. Why does that sound familiar?
“Oh, I wish I was in the land of Cotton….”
Ok, ok, it’s not slavery, but its close. Its indentured servitude, and it’s an American tradition: in the 17th and 18th century, European poor people and criminals who wished to immigrate to the New World but couldn’t afford it would pay for passage by promising to work for an agreed upon number of years for someone who could pay their way across the Atlantic. These workers had no rights until the contract was completed and lived at the mercy of their masters while in their employ.
Dr. Carson would like all immigrants to serve six months as indentured servants. Yes, they will be paid, but if it is for work that Americans won’t do, that means that it is truly awful work for very little pay. And they have to do it if they want to be citizens, even if they have skills that Americans need in the workforce right now.
Those are my thoughts on the CNN Republican Presidential Debate, stay tuned for my coverage of the next one.
In the latest episode of ‘Savage Rants’, I look at the relationship between the media and the Harper gov’t as encapsulated in an interview of Roxanne James by CBC’s Carole MacNeil. Enjoy!
Hey readers,
After a long hiatus, here is my second Savage Rants episode, in 2 parts! in this episode I look at the Committee hearings for Bill C-51 and the government MPs best attempts to defend terrible legislation! Enjoy
I know it has been a long time since I’ve blogged but I got some cool lighting stuff for Christmas so I’m trying something new: Video Blog!!! I will get better at this, but for now enjoy my first stab!
The Nick Savage 