Saturday, August 05, 2006

So much for moral clarity

Remember a few months back, when their new BFF Heather Reisman and Chapters/Indigo refused to carry the edition of Ezra’s Western Standard that reprinted the infamous Danish cartoons? The Conservative blogging legions weren’t impressed, to say the least:

* I'm delighted to see that Reisman has a reverence for private property sorely lacking among our elites, aren't you. However, if the "situtation with Harper's magazine is different" then... Why the identical response? Not too nimble there, Heather. What a Canadian, eh?

* Chapters/Indigo have decided not to carry the issue of the Western Standard with the cartoons. Shame on them.

* It's clear. Chapters/Indigo doesn't *really* give a shit about sensitivities. It gives a shit about violence. …With that logic, all we have to do is protest enough, make enough noise, burn enough buildings, [threaten to] kill enough 'offenders', and Chapters will acquiesce. Why don't we get our pro-Bush gear on and start riots until they ban the sale of Micahel Moore's books from Chapters? That fat bastard gives me the willies.

Now, though, that Reisman has jumped into the Conservative fold because of Harper’s “strong support” for Israel in the current Middle East conflict (wonder if Heather watches Quebec TV?) it’s a different story though over in BT land:

* Never thought I'd see the day when the King and Queen of the Toronto Liberal cocktail circuit would make the switch…This is spectacular news for the Conservatives for two main reasons: one, it will give them a new "in" into prestigious Toronto social circles. While most of these people are not Conservative and will probably never vote for Harper, this can't hurt. It may make them think or twice, or some may even stay home next election day. That's still better than voting Liberal

* Call me partisan, I don't care... but THIS IS HUGE. Say whatever you want, but I think this is a MAJOR COUP. I'm sorry, but a policy wonk, a former NATIONAL LIBERAL PARTY POLICY CHAIRPERSON at that, doesn't make a switch like that willy-nilly…It would be like Stephen Harper, again, a policy wonk, making the switch to the Liberals a few years back!

The Conservative flip floppery is perfectly illustrated by Conservative blogger Convenant Zone. It previously called for a boycott of Chapters/Indigo, writing:

When are our cowardly corporate and political elites going to learn that banning the exercise of free speech is a blasphemy in western culture, and that the pc desire behind such acts of blasphemy cannot be reconciled with Muslims' claims that western cartoonists are blaspheming Islam? Heather Reisman is the latest to enter the cowardice stakes, banning an issue of Harper's from her stores.

Now, though, that the “cowardly” Heather is cuddling up to Prime Minister Steve? Well, now the boycott is off, and so is their hat:

My hat is off to Heather Reisman. I think I will even have a look to see if she has any books I want to buy.

I give credit though to Nice Comfy Fur, for maintaining some moral consistency and recognizing Heather and Gerry for what they are:

Now the Conservatives owe nothing to such fair-weather friends. In fact, having such friends is the last thing this government needs, given Reisman's history of censorship. So while Stephen Harper may be Heather’s pick today, it is important to keep in mind that power is to Canada's parvenu what shit is to flies. They will always be buzzing around government looking for something. We can certainly indulge Heather on Israel as a matter of principle. But if she expects more, just give her a swat.

I can't wait to see what happens the next time Heather decides one of their favourite right-wing screeds has no place on her shelves. Should be fun.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


Red Tory said...


Too funny for words. So this right-wing asshat will now sally forth from under his bridge to the local Chapters to see if there's a remote possibility of a book worth reading because Heather Reisman has flipped over to the CPC. Man, that is priceless.

Peter Rempel said...

So whate exactly have you accomplished here? What a waste of time.

Jay said...

What we should do is start searching for books on the mideast and see if these two "latte sippers' have been determining which books to stock based on their views (pretty obvious with the ban of the Muhammed cartoons) and then air that out to dry.

I have not bought a thing at chapters ever, kind of a bonus to growing up in rural newfoundland. I will now be using chapters as a library of course. If they won't support us financially I will be doing all my research on their dime!

I guess I better get to chapters before they replace all my fave reads with Ann Coulter.

A BCer in Toronto said...

So whate exactly have you accomplished here?

You mean, besides solving world hunger and ushering in world peace?

foottothefire said...

As I said elsewhere (for a moment or so, anyway)...
this was a cheap/easy for the conservatives.

Bud said...

So tell me one thing. Exactly what is the Liberal's stand on Israel. Is it Graham's view? Is it Brison's view? Is it Ignatieff's veiw? How about Paul Martin?Here's what he had to say recently.

"I want to let you know that in Canada we will not, nor will we ever, waiver in our support of Israel," said the prime minister to a standing ovation. "We believe strongly and incontrovertibly in Israel's right to protect itself from people bent on destroying it."

Please tell me why so many Liberal bloggers are bitching . . . exactly what side of the fence are you guys on? Or is it your usual policy to see which way the Candadian people have leaned in the latest poll before you actually make a decision.

burlivespipe said...

in a black and white world I guess you can say kill them or kill that group... Their deaths are more tragic than the others. I think its obvious what side of the fence most Liberals are on -- that there should be an end to indiscriminant bombing where innocents are killed. That Hezzbollah is a terrorist group and should be treated as such, but to let that justice reign down on innocent Lebanese children is beyond the pale.
I guess its easy being Tory, painting the world in black and white hues, us and them (where did i hear that before?), for or against the troops -- hey, i've seen this movie again! I think this time most of us will be wise enuf to turn off the program instead of watching it kill more brain cells...

Zac said...

Jeff, great post. Despite what some might say, its pretty funny to see the flip-flops of some of these blogging Tories.

Locusta emersonia said...

Well Bud, they're your friends now, so welcome them into your fold.
They are standing up for Canada too, eh.
Throw cocktail party, invite them and Emerson, Fortier et al, all the "new" Cons :)

Zac said...


I enjoyed your little quote there Bud.

Simply not being a Tory, doesn't mean that you don't support Israel and its right to defend itself. All parties do, not just Harper.

We differ in the way in which we hope to end the conflict but no one is saying that they don't support Israel, so you can end the little "your either with us or against us" dichotomy.

ottlib said...

Bud cannot do that.

Conservatives are hard wired to expect unquestioning support of any position their leadership puts out there, no matter how silly and shortsighted it is.

If you do question it, even a little, you are asking to be attacked with as many baseless arguments and accusations as they can come up with.

We have seen this over and over again from the Conservative leaders down to their bloggers. So don't expect Bud to be any different. He has demonstrated in the past that he is unwilling or unable to question anything coming from the Conservative leadership.

truepeers said...

Frankly, the logic of the post and the vulgar anti-intellectual first commenter is beyond me. This seems to me a case of someone changing their view of the world and our opinion of her beginning to change likewise (you might have noted the question mark in the blog title, indicating uncertaintty whether we should stop our boycott). When Harpers (a magazine we would never read) was banned, we protested Heather in the name of free speech. Now, when she comes on board the cause of freedom we forgive her and welcome her aboard. If she reverts to an enemy of freedom, the boycott is up again.

So what is confusing or inconsistent about that? Are you guys hard-core puritans who never forgive or who think all punishments, like boycotting or shunning, should be lifelong, never lifted. Red tory sounds a little more like Red Stalinist to me, happy being a heresy hunter and not much else. What principle exactly are you accusing me of betraying at Covenant Zone? Try spelling it out why doncha, so I can have a turn laughing.

A BCer in Toronto said...

I thought the logic was rather clear. A few months ago she's evil incarnate but now that she agrees with the Cons on Isreael all is forgiven and bringing her into the fold is HUGE! I was drawing attention to me what seemed like an example of rather ambigious moral clarity of the sort we Liberanos are often accused of exhibiting by the right.

As for your specific posts truepeers, I fail/ed to see how you got from A to B. You called for a boycott before for free speach reasons, that's perfectly valid. Then, now that she comes to the Cons on Israel, you're going to go check out their book selection. The original reason for your boycott hasn't changed. What did? They're Cons now. And there may have been a question mark in your title, but the quoted text seemed pretty clear.

truepeers said...

The original reason for your boycott hasn't changed. What did?

-well, Heather changed, as I said, but I did too. We actually have had three posts on Heather and Chapters/Indigo. The first, most angry one, assumed she was banning Harper's out of some lame political correctness. I wrote Indigo and received the form letter in reply suggesting that Heather acted out of fear for her employees' safety. Not a great reply, but a lot better than trying to justify the banning as right (according to the whims of moral relativism), irregardless of the threat of violence.

People do have an obligation to protect their employees from Jihadist violence. I don't think Chapters/Indigo did the right thing to protect their employees, but on this point I'm not so sure and I dropped the matter, saying no more about a boycott, but not removing the old post (naturally, any readers can decide for themselves). My uncertainty was relieved when I read the report on Heather's recent political transformation. She's showing a clear allegiance to the same concerns I have - about the rightness [of, e.g., Israel] in standing up to Jihadist violence, so it seems almost certain to me now is the time to forgive her, since I think forgiveness is a fundamental human value, just as is openness to change.

I never thought Heather was evil incarnate. There is good and evil in all of us and when the latter gets the better of us, sometimes it is good if others protest and send us a warning. After writing my previous comment here, I dwelled on your word "flip-flop". That of course brought back memories of John Kerry. It crossed my mind that the "logic" of your post could be explained by an angry attachment to the memory of kerry's defeat.

But JFK was accused of flip-flopping on a major point of policy and principle. It seems to me, you are accusing me of flip-flpping on my opinion of a person. That's a big difference i think you missed in your desire to skewer some cons. We like a politician to be consistent on major issues, or to have only occasional changes of heart, well-explained. But if we are human we should allow people to change (or our opinions of them to change) and open ourselves to change. The partisan urge to keep everyone (especially non-parliamentarians) in their boxes should be largely limited to election time. That's why we at Covenant Zone are most definitely a small-c conservative blog, though we like PM Harper much at present and think the Liberals are politically foolish to favour Ignatieff or Rae over Dryden.

A BCer in Toronto said...

Fair enough truepeers. It was unclear to me originally how you had gotten from A to B, with the absence of reasoning/explination in the post it seemed like a pure, as I said, flip/flop of political expediency. It would seem though that, as you have now articulted, you did have a thought process to get from A to B so, while I don't agree with your reasoning, I can respect the decision.