‘Dirty, sleazy Internet tricks’


Seven times during QP this morning—six times by John Baird, once by Ted Menzies—the government alleged the NDP was behind a “sleazy, dirty” Internet campaign. (Note: the evidence in this regard is decidedly flimsy.) Vic Toews is apparently seeking an investigation.

In an interview with Evan Solomon, host of CBC Radio’s The House, to air Saturday, Toews says he’s going to send a letter to Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer to request an investigation.


‘Dirty, sleazy Internet tricks’

  1. Well if anyone knows ‘dirty and sleazy’ it’s the Cons…..heh

  2. So the CPC thinks telling the truth is sleazy and dirty. Gotcha.

    Why doesn’t Vic just ask the Competition Commissioner to investigate.. under the new bill, he can walk in and demand anybody’s records, after all.

    • Yup. And the Citizen actually wrote: “What followed were dozens of tweets with alleged quotes from affidavits connected to Toews’ divorce proceedings. The contents of the tweets were unverified.”

      “Alleged quotes.” They haven’t even sent a cub reporter to confirm that the public record was quoted accurately. I guess this whole Vikileaks business is just too dirty for the press to do its job. Bunch of princesses.

      It won’t matter anyway. The Cons will blame this on the NDP at the top of their lungs for ever and ever, with or without evidence. And the obedient press will now always make reference to the allegation, with or without evidence. Just another day in Canadian politics.

      • “”Alleged quotes.” They haven’t even sent a cub reporter to confirm that the public record was quoted accurately..”

        There’s little doubt the “public record was quoted accurately”, which is perhaps why the G & M saw no need to confirm it.  What perhaps is causing the G & M and other major media outlets to resist the urge to reprint the tweets is their understanding of defamation law in the context of promulgating allegations contained in affidavits sworn by bitter soon-to-be ex-spouses who (presumably) have not been cross-examined on them.

        • There’s little doubt the “public record was quoted accurately”…”

          Little doubt? Do you have some information I don’t have? Because the Globe has done nothing to dispel doubt about the accuracy of the quotes. They have chosen to leave a hole in their story, which was my point.

          They don’t need to reprint the tweets in order to confirm that they’ve accurately quoted the public record.

      • And the Citizen is getting killed in the comments about their lack of IT sophistication.

        • Ironically, they’ve demonstrated what can be done with the kind of information this bill makes available to police. Even these IT novices managed to trace the address to a specific organization, speak to one of its users and connect it to comments on a Paul Simon website.

          It’s not hard to picture police forces building a giant database of IP addresses (and associated personal information), cross-referencing it with other databases and using it for fishing expeditions. 

  3. Ugh… having to ask someone’s permission to have an investigation into legal activity is so cumbersome.

    If only there was some way that the Conservatives could investigate the activities of opposition MPs without requests to authorities (or warrants) and the like… some kind of lawful access that would require ISPs to store and divulge user contact and browsing information to anyone who has the ministers approval.

    Too bad we don’t live in that lawful access world.

    • If nothng else, the Cons are irony challenged. 

  4. Are Cons going to investigate how accurate the accusations are against dirty dog Toews? If publishing what Toews did is sleazy, what do Cabinet Ministers think of Toews behaviour? 

    Cons are against speech but support droit du seigneur bevaviour.

    Thomas Jefferson ~ …. yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts ….

  5. What law was broken?

    • The up coming “Act to Protect Conservatives from Inconvenient Truths.”

  6. There are some pretty dirty and sleazy facts revealed in that account, that’s for sure.

    Oh wait, those facts were previously revealed in court and are part of the public record.  

    • If by “facts revealed in court” you mean the contents of the former Mrs. Toews affidavits, I highly doubt she was ever in court to be cross examined on them.  I don’t consider most of the accusatory bile spewed by parties to a nasty divorce to represent “facts” myself, though others may differ.

      • Toews is perfectly free to set the record straight. 

        • By doing what, exactly?  Tearing the scab off the wound and throwing some more dirty laundry between he and his ex wife out there for public consumption?

          My preference, and that of most decent people, is that the invariably painful and sad details of the death of a marriage be kept private.  It is obviously not yours.  Can’t say I’m surprised.  

          • If mis-information was being spread about my divorce on the internet, I would be standing up and correcting the record.If Toews has nothing to be ashamed of, he would be doing that – he is not exactly a shrinking violet.

          • You must not know many divorced people.  It is not uncommon for couples in the throes of a divorce to say nasty things about each other.  Then the divorce is granted and people move on.  I don’t know any who have any interest in rehashing the whole thing all over again and if I did know any, I’d suggest they get professional help.  

          • If privacy is paramount, what justification is there for the Minister to have unlimited, unaccountable access to everyone’s private information? This law is flat out insane.

      • I’m sorry that you don’t understand the phrase “part of the public record”.  Truly pitiable.

  7. I can see that you have no objection to the airing of court documents of this particular Member of Parliament.
     OK, then you should agree to publicize any personal and private court documents of all Members, whether that be divorce proceedings, speeding tickets, or whatever.After all it would be just telling the truth,  it would not be sleazy and dirty, not irony challenged, no law would be broken.

    • Ahem — you know if Toews wasn’t such a finger-pointing moralizing hypocrite this wouldn’t be happening to him. He’s reaping what he’s sown. That’s called karma.

    • They’re public figures, so.. exactly.

      Actually, going a little further, they are our representatives. Meaning they represent us. Meaning that yes, we should know *exactly* what we’re choosing to represent ourselves. Were somebody a member of the Ku Klux Klan, for instance, I don’t care how intelligent or wise they are, or how able they are to separate their private views of race from their stance on public policy, I don’t want that person to be the one that represents *me* in the House of Commons.

    • Oh the ironing.

  8. What does Irwin Cotler think of this?

    It is galling beyond belief that the Conservatives want to portray the opposition as “sleazy”

  9. Broadcasting the sordid details of Toew’s pathetic personal life is definitely a sleazy strategy but the Cons, who have consistently striven to lower standards of civility in public affairs during King Stephen’s reign, can’t seriously be expecting any sympathy over this caper…can they?

    • Outraged victim is their default position, so yes, they expect sympathy.

  10. Baird — He is the biggest bluffer and the one who misleads the public the most. The Cons. will do anything to try to get the heat off themselves over this dangerous bill. They have no idea about what civil liberties are. As usual, it’s really Harper who is behind this, and he wants it passed “as is.” We should be very worried. Harper has some very dangerous ideas: 

  11. “I’m told there are just two dynamic IP addresses for parliament”

    Errr… if there are just 2. or even 4 as he later states, dynamic IP addresses then there are only 2-4 computers in that place that can use them at any time. IP Addresses are not shared on machines: this would cause a routing error and most OS’s will recognize the situation and refuse connection if it happens. If he said static he’d be on something approaching solid ground because I find it hard to believe the entire place isn’t on non-routable private address space behind some public static firewall addresses. Even then, each device on that network needs it’s own individual IP that any credible IP admin is going to be able to track down if they’re maintaining any sort of logging at all.

    It doesn’t help anyone when the press pretends to know what it’s talking about in tech instead of getting some people in who do: especially when we’re trying to challenge  a law that’s almost as technologically ignorant as what McLeod is positing here.

  12. Honestly, I don’t get what the fuss is about. Court records are public. If you or someone else files an affidavit, expect it to go public.

    What difference does it make that it comes out in 140 character dribs and drabs?

  13. Conservitive opinion:  If dirty and sleazy facts or outright lies are to be published about a member of Parliament, they damn well better be contained in a 10 percenter, or ‘anonymously’ leaked to a member of the main stream media.  All other sleaze is unacceptable.

Sign in to comment.