Invoking the memory of Jack Layton -

Invoking the memory of Jack Layton


Via Twitter, Conservative backbencher Stephen Woodworth is profoundly saddened by Pat Martin.

Isn’t the real question whether Pat Martin’s foul language was momentary lack of self-control or reflecting ordinary quality of thought?

Is whether one responds to frustration and defeat constructively or destructively an indicator of character?

Whatever happened to “My friends, love is better than anger”(or hopes to that effect).Perhaps PMartin didn’t get that memo

Perhaps politicians who don’t tweet & act consistently with “love is better than anger” should apologize to the memory of JLayton 

This is the not the first time a Conservative has invoked Mr. Layton’s final words to scold a New Democrat.


Invoking the memory of Jack Layton

  1. Dear Stephen Woodworth: F**k off.

    • Lashing out at someone that reminds you of your purported ideals is a typical response to feeling shame at failing them, you know.

    • Eat my shorts!

  2. Cons are big on pearl-clutching.

    • Yes, yes, such delicate flowers, etc. Clearly hypocritical moralizers, and such, though of course it will be downright scandalous if ever Harper is caught on tape muttering obscenities about the opposition.

      But return to the issue: how do you think Jack would have felt about this, hm?

      • Harper publically used the word ‘screw’ twice,  and no one batted an eyelash.

        Standard Con hypocrisy.

        • When? (Links to trasncripts or videoes would be grand).

          • Google Harper Green Shift Screw. 

          • Fair enough. Personally, I’m most unimpressed with Martin telling a twitter commenter (an obnoxious twitter commenter, mind you) “F–ck you.” It effective transistioned his rant from “I’m angry about the death of democracy!” to “I”m Angry!”

          • Thanks for replying but JanBC filled me in on our PM’s bad boy phase. I still don’t know if I feel screw is on the same taboo level for politicians as fuck, though.

      • Most likely he would have agreed with San Diego Dave, below. Love may be better than hate, but they’re both better than the vile spectacle the Harper Conservatives make of our political institutions. 

        • Sigh. You know, thereis actually a difference between the literal and the figurative. (Also, Emily, I’m not sure what environment you grew up in, but in my experience most people tend to act as though ‘screw’ is barely PG-rated, compared to dropping F-bombs.)

          Can’t you people come up with something better than “Well, it was a word that we mostly agree – out of prudery or civility or what have you – is inappropriate for a professional or a politician to say in public, but this other thing over here that I really hate is metaphorically so much more profane?”

          Tu quoque arguments fail if the similarity is entirely figurative. Why not just own it, and claim there’s nothing wrong with what he said, rather than trying to blame the government for “making” him say a naughty word?

          • To the contrary, sometimes the profane is the appropriate response.  

          • So own it. Don’t rant about “vile spectacles” and such, and argue that one is less inappropriate than the other. Why not just claim that the idea of profanity is meaningless, and everyone should just be free to use the language that expresses their feelings best?

            (Oh, right…because then it wouldn’t feel so deliciously, sticking-it-to-the-man taboo.)

          • Your equivalence is simply absurd.

          • ‘Screwing somebody’ is pretty much the same as ‘fucking’ them.

            Your associates aside.

          • And yet the use of one is commonly treated as worse – more impolite, less appropriate, just plain cruder – than the other. What’s your point?

          • @OriginalEmily1:disqus 

            ‘Commonly treated as worse’….really?  Who by?

            4 year olds say ‘fuck’ today

            Point is, you don’t practice what you preach…hypocrisy.

          • Eat my shorts!

          • @Martin’s Evil Tweeting Twin

            Hey, if Bart Simpson is your hero, you have a problem.

          • Hmmm Martin’s Evil Tweeting Twin, what could that possibly be refering too? Double hmmmmm I wonder which curently being discussed MP may have tweeted to a fellow tweethead “Eat my shorts!” Tis a mystery that will never be solved!

          • Go pound sand.

          • Your rage is delicious.

          • @TheAVR:disqus 

            LOL the crowd that wouldn’t allow Lucy Ricardo to share a bed with her husband?

            Or say she was ‘pregnant’

            Get real.

        • @ Batman
          Pat Martin – mad – when isn’t he? This is hardly new news.

          • True enough! The whole thing just seems silly. The fact that the media feels the need to report on this is mind boggling. As is Martin and others claim’s that some how his swearing has caused people to report on the knee capping of debate. There were articles admonishing the government before Martin felt the need to rant, and there have been articles since equally independent of this man’s influence.

      • Shelley Glover just described an opposition’s comment as ‘bull’ – in the house. I expect you to be outraged.

        • When have I said I was personally offended by such language, dear?

          I, myself, don’t care. When talking to friends, I’ve said much ‘worse.’ I’m just enjoying the hypocrisy, and the ensuing polite middle-class backlash from the Normals whose votes the NDP needs.

          • The only ones upset by the language are the pearl-clutching Cons….however they’re not ‘Normals’.

          • I gotta ask, what good does it serve to demonize part of your fellow citzens? Yes, the voted Conservative, they have different views than you but that doesn’t mean that they’re not ‘normal.’

          • They are not mainstream, and are not ‘normal’ and are even unCanadian

          • You heard it from Emily, folks — Conservatives aren’t Canadians.  I love it.

          • Actually I’ve said Cons are Americans many times.
            Just catching up?

          • How can you think that around 39% of the population is not Canadian just because of their political beliefs? That’s almost as horrible as that crazy paige girl from way back in the summer who wanted an arab spring live revolution because the party she didn’t like had won. While we don’t have to respect our fellow citizens political choices we do have to respect them and the fact their equally Canadian as the next Canuk, regardless of their political view of the country is.

          • 60% of Canadians voted for someone other than Harper.

          • I’m not trying to make a case for the Tory mandate, all I’m saying is that there are alot of Canadians who voted for a Conservative, and to say that they’re not Canadian is omiting a good chunck of the population. It’s also an ad hominem, and a pretty vicious one at that.

          • Yes, a minority voted Con.  True believers and useful fools.

            The majority didn’t vote Con

          • Look we can quibble on what the 39% signifies but end of the day that is a good chunk of Canadians who voted Conservative, and saying that any of them are not Canadian excludes many clearly Canadian people from this country. Furthermore, even if only one person voted for the CPC, saying that one person is non-Canadian simply because of the way he voted is not based on logic or a definition of what it is to be Canadian. It’s just an ad hominem and a rather horrible and divisive one at that.

          • Reform/CRAP/CA….early tea partiers.

            It’s been well-publicized over the years that Harper finds this a third-rate country, helped build Reform as a Republican party, and doesn’t care if Canada is one country or ten.

            So anyone that voted for him isn’t Canadian

          • What backlash?  A couple of well placed f*cks and the issue of the governments shutting down debate is highlighted and that’s what the outrage is about.  Well played by Martin.

          • Just to be fair to OE1 below, I’m going to point out that the NDP voters are no less normal than the centre voters.

  3. I love it when the ideologues get sanctimonious with one another. Much more entertaining twaddle than what we get with Libs.

  4. Wow. AVR’s handing out moral leasons. It must be friday…how sweet…as he/she would say.

    • Miss Manners from the language police. 

      • *Ticketed for Rudeness*
        Careful who’s police spokesperson you mock next time, ma’m.

  5. So Martin isn’t perfect; nor is he Layton…i’m shocked.

    Character lessons from these Tories already. School marm Woodworth [ why does that name ring a bell?] thinks that  maybe Martin should go stand in the corner or something until principle Steve comes along to scold him.
    Let me guess Woodworth thought this up a) on his own b) after it was suggested he SHOULD by the PMO?

  6. What a sanctimonious, insincere load of garbage. 

  7. Surprised it took so long to invoke the ‘letter’ – I would have been tweeting back “love is better than anger” within seconds.
    From Martin’s twitter account – gotta love politics.
    “The only criticism Jack would have over the release of his letter is that there was no fundraising appeal at the bottom…I can say that…”!/PatMartinMP  

  8. Love IS better than hate, Mr. Woodworth. You learned that earlier this year when party headquarters deactivated your twitter account after that “crippled” joke.

    Swearing in frustration doesn’t preclude love, by the way. Sometimes, what you love causes the strongest reactions.

  9. Mr. Woodworth really doesn’t want to get into a battle using past tweets. He really, really doesn’t.

    • He’s not the one that has to live up to a famous declaration of Peace, Love and Understanding by our most recent political martyr. Try harder.

      • Your ability to repeat ad nauseum ridiculous, self-serving statements in the face of rationality would make you a superb Harper front-bencher. 

        • Clement would even award AVR a gazebo of his own!  LOL

      • “Has to live up to…” ?

        Have both Mr. Woodward and Mr. Martin agreed to rules of engagement, wherein both must be held to account for the prior statements of past party leaders? Or are you simply imposing conditions upon the discourse to bolster your point?

        Becuase that seems a tad dishonest, no?

        • To be fair though Martin did make a big fuss early in the year to upholding Jack’s ‘legacy’ and enforcing ‘decorum’ in the House. And to be double fair, Martin has also countered that by pointing out that twitter isn’t the House (even if that’s where you’re tweeting from).

  10. Am I the only one who finds it a bit funny that when Layton was alive the Tories message was that he was wrong on everything and was a no good, dirty pinko commie/socialist and now that he is dead they preach his final words. Funny how one’s opinion of someone changes when said person is gone.

    • Or to quote them when it becomes convenient.

      • “Or to quote them when it becomes convenient.”

        And that’s how I feel about the economy… You’re right, that is convenient! :)

  11. No problem with profane language – fucking is not illegal, as a word or otherwise. But I would definitely take offence with anyone who would insult me by insinuating that I am a criminal.