48

‘Canadians are angered and in a state of shock over the actions of the NDP leader’

The Conservatives attack Thomas Mulcair’s meeting with Gary Freeman


 

Shortly before QP, the government sent up Roxanne James to report the following.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are angered and in a state of shock over the actions of the NDP leader. This past weekend the leader of the NDP met with convicted cop shooter Gary Freeman, a man who was convicted of attempted murder in the U.S. after repeatedly shooting a young Chicago police officer, Terrence Knox, who was left permanently paralyzed and suffering from the effects of the shooting until his recent death. Rather than face due justice, Gary Freeman evaded the law for several years by fleeing to Canada and living here illegally under a false name. This is the man who the Leader of the Opposition chose to meet with. Sadly, it is telling that the NDP leader has never met with the family of the victim. Instead, he went on national television yesterday to shamefully dismiss the repeated shooting as a mere scuffle. Canadians are getting fed up seeing the NDP stand up for the rights of criminals over the rights of victims and their families time and time again.

Later, during QP, Conservative backbencher Kevin Sorenson stood to hold the government account thusly.

Mr. Speaker, after bashing Canada’s natural resource sector and Canadian jobs while in Washington, the Leader of the Opposition made it a priority to visit with convicted cop shooter, Gary Freeman. The Leader of the Opposition continues to defend this admitted and convicted felon, and pressed for him to be allowed to come on up and live in Canada, despite the fact that Gary Freeman is a citizen of the United States and was never a citizen or lawful resident of Canada. Can the Minister of Public Safety tell the House whether our Conservative government supports this reckless and dangerous idea?

Vic Toews duly stood and responded.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly shameful that when the Leader of the Opposition goes abroad his priority is importing violent criminals into Canada. Mr. Freeman shot a front-line Chicago police officer, not once, not twice but three times, leaving that officer permanently paralyzed. These kinds of foreign nationals, convicted of dangerous and violent crimes, are not admissible to Canada. Reckless policies on immigration, like opposing the faster removal of foreign criminals bill and advocating for those who shoot brave front-line peace—

Ms. James errs in her report. Gary Freeman was not “convicted of attempted murder,” he pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated battery. The rest of Mr. Freeman’s story is reviewed here.


 

‘Canadians are angered and in a state of shock over the actions of the NDP leader’

  1. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    • Police officers must take comfort in your post, you deranged lunatic.

      • Cons are always keen to label people as traitors, porn supporters, Taliban members and various other nonsense.

        If you think Canadians are ‘angry and shocked’ over this, you ….and yer Con buddies….are the deranged lunatics.

        Enough with the political theatre.

        • Yes, Conservatives always call people they disagree with all kinds of nasty names. Liberals and New Democrats never do that, ever. That’s because Conservatives are evil and scummy, while Liberals and New Democrats are progressive and infinitely good.

          • Misjudging their own culture will get Cons tossed, so save your ‘bitter and twisted’ routine to bore someone else.

      • This has nothing to do with police officers needing to take comfort. You should be ashamed for trying to drive a wedge between the police and the people they are sworn to serve and protect. Only a total moron would misrepresent an event that occurred 43 years ago in the US and try to contextualize it for 2013. Mr. Freeman lived in Canada for over 30 years without incident. That is all the proof anyone should need that he poses a threat to no one, certainly not to police officers. Are you trying to set him up to be killed?

        • These are all good points, but at the same can we be entirely sure that no police officer in 2013 would ever ever commit actions which would make a citizen consider using a firearm they had in their possession?

  2. This may not qualify as contempt of Parliament, but the statements made by the government side certainly show a contempt for the truth.
    The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sadly.

  3. Right, because shooting a cop couldn’t possibly be considered “attempted murder” by clear and rational people.

    • He wasn’t convicted of that crime. Is this the kind of unreported crime the CPC wants to crack down on? The ones where the conviction & sentence is deemed politically not harsh enough because it doesn’t justify the political rehetoric spewed?

      • Keith, I’m sure if someone pointed a firearm at you and discharged it, aggravated battery wouldn’t be your first choice of charges.

        • Still, we don’t get to say that a person was convicted of X when the reality is that they were convicted of Y and we WISH they had been convicted of X.

          • Really? So we can’t call Karla Homolka a murderer? If this were a court of law, I’d agree with you, but it’s the court of public opinion. If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, most people would call that attempted murder.

          • I don’t mind if you call Homolka a murderer, but no, I don’t think you can call her a convicted murderer because, you know, she’s not. Is that repugnant? Sure. But it’s the truth.

            I also think that an MP speaking prepared remarks in the House of Commons ought to be held to a higher standard of accuracy than that found in everyday conversation.

          • Not if a gun was pointed a you first and you were assaulted. That is called self-defense. Check the Criminal Code of Canada if you are confused. And I still await you to reveal exactly what you know about the real facts of the case you so freely opine about. Yes this may be the court of public opinion but any discourse that is not informed and reasoned does a disservice to the public, sir.

          • Very bright you are my lord. What do you actually know about the case? Nothing. Of course, its your right to release as much flatulence as you like.

          • What do you actually know about the case?

            I know that in the case the defendant was never convicted of attempted murder.

            In a discussion of whether or not it was appropriate for James to say that he was convicted of attempted murder, what else do I need to know other than that he WASN’T convicted of attempted murder???

            There may be plenty of grey in the case, but there’s no grey to the question of whether or not he was convicted of attempted murder. He wasn’t. Period. So, saying that he was convicted of attempted murder is at best a mistake, and at worst a deliberate lie.

        • Braindrain, how do you what actually happened on March 7, 1969 in Chicago, Illinois? You do not.

      • Your correct, he plead to a lesser offence. But that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t guilty of the offence he was originally charged with. It’s like saying someone convicted of manslaughter isn’t a murderer. He pointed a gun at a person, and he pulled the trigger. Why would anybody defend such a person, or try to downplay the seriousness of his crime?

        And how can Mulcair be for the gun registry which punishes people who’ve commited no crimes, while at the same time being against mandatory minimums for gun crimes, all while actively trying to get a convicted gun criminal into the country? The hypocrisy is astounding.

        • It’s like saying someone convicted of manslaughter isn’t a murderer.

          No, it’s like saying that someone convicted of manslaughter isn’t a convicted murderer. James said he was convicted of attempted murder. He wasn’t convicted of attempted murder.

          It’s not the most egregious error EVER, but it’s clearly and axiomatically an error.

          • Since you appear to enjoy playing with words—let`s just call him a convicted killer.

          • Well, since he shot the Knox in the arm, and Knox survived, that’s quite a pretzel you’re making of the truth.

            In his victim-impact statement filed in Toronto court, Knox said on
            the afternoon of March 7, 1969, at the request of neighbourhood school
            officials anticipating violence, police officers had been asked to stop
            youths who looked of school age. One of them, he said, refused to be
            searched. While he was radioing an officer for help, Pannell shot him
            three times in the arm, Knox was reported as saying in news reports
            after the incident.

            Murdered men don’t make victim impact statements.

          • Yeah, I know,
            I was just following up on the murderer-manslaughter conversation started by RO and picked up by LKO.

          • How am I the one playing with words? I’m not the one who stood in the House of Commons and said that a person who was never convicted of X was, in fact, convicted of X.

        • Indeed, a plea bargain doesn’t really mean the defendant is guilty or innocent depending upon the nature of the deal itself; which you, Mr Omen, know about. Correct? You still have revealed that you know any real facts of the case. Do you? Have you seen the plea bargain? Have you seen court transcripts? Have you seen any medical reports? How do you know that Mr Freeman pointed a gun at anyone as the initiator of the event? You don’t Mr. Omen.

          • If Freeman was defending himself against the police, as you imply, then please give us the details of your version of the incident.

        • Do a bit of reading… of the incident itself, and the environment and times in which it occurred.

          So many pro-gun types believe in the right o carry a weapon for self defense – and then when a (black) man in a racially charged situation does just that, suddenly those same gun advocates get all law and order on his ass.

          Talk about hypocrisy!

          • Are you sure these law and order types would encourage a man to use his registered gun against the police ?

          • Many of them believe in the right to defend themselves against the tyrrany of the state, do they not? That was the milieu in which this incident occurred.

            Then there is that whole 30+ years of life as a solid, productive citizen since the offence, with no recidivism. Vic Toews was convicted of an election offence in 2005 and yet we let him serve as a federal Minister; why does he get a second chance and not Mr. Freeman? Is forgiveness only for white guys in the CPC?

          • Freeman`s best hope is for his lawyer to point out his ordinary lifestyle of the past 30 years.

            The worst thing his lawyer could do for him would be to somehow attempt to justify his shooting of the policeman as his civil right to defend himself.

            An opposing attorney would simply point out that James Roszko probably thought that he was defending himself against the Mayerthorpe police who had invaded his property.

          • His ordinary lifestyle would obviously be a large part of the argument. But when those opposing you are trying to paint you in the worst possible light by exaggerating or even lying (see above article) then one has to defend oneself with the truth.

          • It is, in fact, the single most obvious collolary of “I need a gun to protect me from the tyrrany of government like the constitutions says.” It’s like Ice-T says “I need a gun for when the cops come to my door.”

    • Obviously,you do not know the facts of the case. Can you tell us any real facts of the case? Your remarks reflect a bias against intelligence dialogue.

      • Perceptive of you: he’s actually the leader of the organization NO INTELLIGENT DIALOGUE.

    • You are far from being “clear and rational”. You have no desire to be. You know nothing about the case.

  4. No, Canadians are not angered. In fact according to a recent poll taken by the Toronto Star just before last Christmas more than 75% of the respondents voted that Mr. Freeman should be allowed back into Canada. The Conservatives are still making accusations and statements that amount to hearsay because they have no proof; no medical records, no facts of the case to support them. And they do it before Question Period. Doesn’t sound too brave to me. The Conservatives are angered into a frenzied froth because they are soon to be exposed as master liars. Mr. Freeman and his lawyer have filed in Federal Court to have his case heard. Go to http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_queries_e.php, type in Freeman, scroll down to Douglas Gary Freeman. You will notice one of the entries reveal the government made a motion for the case not to be heard and the court rejected their motion. Why would the Conservatives not want the case to be heard? What are they trying to hide in the Freeman case? What are they so afraid of? Have they lied about Mr Freeman all along and do not want to be exposed as serial liars? The government allowed Damien Echols into Canada last year to attend the Toronto International Film Festival. Echols was convicted of murdering three 8 year old boys and served 17 years in prison. Mr. Freeman applied to come home for Christmas to be with family according to that Toronto Star article and the government would not let him. Something is woefully amiss here.

    • 75% of Toronto Star readers also would have voted in favor of giving Osama Bin Laden sanctuary. Toronto Star readers are not typical of most Canadians.

      • Thank you for showing your ignorance. The Conservative Party of Canada is not typical of most Canadians. The Toronto Star is the largest Canadian newspaper by circulation. If a poll in any paper can roughly approximate Canadian’s thoughts and feelings it would be the paper with the largest readership. But why present you with facts when all you want to do is dredge the bottom for male bovine manure.

        • The quickest way to lose all credibility in your argument is to quote a survey in the Toronto Star.
          It`s a left wing rag
          I think most of their circulation comes from giveaways at the drive thru.

          • So the readers of the Star do not merit your consideration as fellow Canadians or as fellow human beings because they read “a left wing rag”?
            Andrew, those are Tea Party worth sentiments that fail to mask your inability to sustain a cogent argument in line with Mr. Wherry’s piece.

          • Do you really think that those few Star readers who bother to respond to a poll are an accurate cross-section of the Canadian public ?

            I would advise you to attempt to choose more legitimate sources to back your flimsy argument.

          • Come now, Toronto IS Canada. It’s progressive. Ergo, it’s Canadian. Now if it were a Calgary Herald reader survey, then it would not be representative. Because Albertans are not real Canadians. But Torontonians are.

        • It’s the Toronto Star. Do you think any legitimate polling company would poll 1000 people in Toronto and infer that it reflects the opinions of all Canadians?

          • A Liberal partisan hack from Toronto would.

  5. I dunno, this Canadian is still shocked that Vic Toews had sexual intercourse with a girl her hired to babysit for him and then took up with her. I mean, on one hand it is questionable to what extent personal affiars should be brought into OH EM GEE HE HAD SEX WITH THE BABYSITTER!1 ICK!

  6. The Con god is certainly a wrathful, vengeful and vindictive god.

    • Also, a lying and adulterous god.

      • Yes, Conservatives are awful people upon whom we should constantly rain down contempt.

Sign in to comment.