James Moore is sorry

Love thy neighbour as thyself, but keep thy food to thyself?

by Aaron Wherry

In regards to that thing he said, the Industry Minister would like to apologize.

In response to a question from a reporter last week, I made an insensitive comment that I deeply regret. I apologize.

Caring for each other is a Canadian ethic that I strongly believe in – always have and always will. Of course poverty is an issue that concerns me, and concerns all Canadians. All levels of government, indeed all members of our society, have a responsibility to be compassionate and care for those in need.

Great work has been done to tackle poverty and the challenges associated with poverty. And while more work is needed, I know the cause of fighting poverty is not helped by comments like those I made last week. For that, I am sorry.

Luckily, the NDP got their demand for an apology out just before he did so.

Here is the original audio from News 1130 in British Columbia. His second response, which concludes the rhetorical flourish in question, at least cries out for further elaboration and specifics.

“Is it my job to feed my neighbour’s child? I don’t think so” could still be the first sentences of an interesting paper on the role and purpose and place of government.




Browse

James Moore is sorry

  1. The eternal question first asked by Cain: Am I my brothers keeper? It’s interesting to note that – according to the story – God never answered the question.

    • S’okay….Moore answered FOR Him.

      • Don’t forget Moore has TWO capital “H” Hims! He could easily get confused.

        • LOL

    • The question was answered. Cain was running away, but he knew where his brother was. God put the question to him, knowing the answer was yes. God answered Cain’s vain attempts to escape his responsibility by striking him down. You can run on for a long time…

    • He was undoubtedly in shock the first time. Nowadays he simply lets trolls like Charles obfuscate for him. You can only ask the question in vain so many times , even if you’re god.

    • According to Prophet Moore the answer is a clear ‘hell no’.

    • If I’m not mistaken, God answered the question, but Caine’s cellphone bill was so high that he couldn’t afford to retrieve the voicemail.

  2. If James Moore were Justin Trudeau, then the answer to the rhetorical question would be:
    Yes but.
    Yes I may have to give to the hungry child, but he will have to give it back when I charge the kid “speaking fees”.
    For fun, just imagine how Moore would be ravaged by the media if he were to even verbalize in the rhetorical sense what Trudeau actually did: charge charities thousands of dollars of their desperately needed money to speak at their charitable event.
    Better to have the lavish European ski vacation paid on the backs of poor kids than out of his massive trust fund….so the ol Trudeau saying goes.

    • You’re like Swift, Twain, Wilde and Shaw all rolled into one.

      • Given to madness in his old age, lousy with money, a confirmed sodomite, and a Stalinist?

        Seems a bit harsh..

    • Any theories on why charities freely chose to give Trudeau all that “desperately needed” money rather than give it to “poor kids”?

      • Any theories as to why Justin didn’t do what others with name recognition do all the time: donate their time????
        The charities’ bureaucrats aren’t seeking to lead our country, so what their motivations are, are rather irrelevant. I can think of a few good intentioned motivations, and I can think of a few not so good, such as currying personal political favour.
        However, the only motivation for Trudeau choosing to take 10 grand rather than simply doing his MP’s job and speaking at such an event on his regular salary is this: he would rather have the 10 grand in his pocket than in the charity’s fund. And it matters not a whiff to him if he didn’t “need” the money and the charity did.
        That the defence of Trudeau actually TAKING ten grand from a charity, occurs on a thread chiding Moore about merely rhetorically talking about not giving, is just so rich and delicious I’m not sure I will have any room for supper.

        • I see. So how a charity is run is not the responsibility of those that actually make the choices of how to run the charities and spend the money. And people with name recognition speak for free, whilst unknown public speakers command fees.

          But if they were looking to curry favour, wouldn’t they have got a member of the government?

          • Lenny, I have no doubt that if Justin saw an old lady fall to the ground, picked her up and then said he charges a 10 dollar “old lady pick up fee” you would find whatever way you could to justify the actions of the latest saviour for the Liberal party.
            We’ll leave it at the fact that some decent people who are born into wealth and name recognition give back to speak for charities, while others “command” as you say, ten grand (even while being paid to do so by the taxpayers).
            Trudeau is in the latter category, and I encourage you and all of his supporters to proudly shout this fact from the rooftops.

          • Like everything else about your posts, your professed doubts stem from a deeply held and cherished stupidity.

          • I would think he’d charge the old lady more than that.

            Any other free market activities you hate that you would like vent about? How about MPs running farms on the side who aren’t giving there produce away to charity?

          • Don’t forget about the realtors who ought to give up there cut to their constituents.

          • ” (even while being paid to do so by the taxpayers).”

            You aren’t helping your case by lying about the rules. There is no rule that says an mp must speak, particularly to constituents outside of their riding, for free or for fee for that matter. You’re simply trying to construct a Trudeau exception to the non rule.

          • You’re feeding the trolls.

          • I know. What’s the alternative? Letting his lies stand unchallenged?

          • Or he might take the $10 and buy the homeless family some food. This guy taught kids. With that name he could be have picked his ticket. By the way wasn’t this article about a Conservative minister.

        • The charities, school boards, etc., either have a budget, or calculate that they will still raise more funds with a “name” speaker despite the fee than with an unknown who charges less. They were under no obligation to bring in Trudeau; that was THEIR choice.

          When you’re shopping for a non-necessity and you choose to pay more for the name brand than the no-name, do you then blame the name-brand manufacturer because you chose to buy their product? Do you lambaste them for not giving you the item for free?

        • I wonder how much the CRAP constituencies pi**ed away on the Duffy? But I guess that’s kind of like charity, for Duffy.

        • Change Subject Guy!

    • So how do you feel about it when Conservative Senators do it like Jacques Demers did?

      • Easy. He should be fired.

    • If we agree to stipulate that before he was the Leader of the Opposition Justin Trudeau was wrong to do whatever it is you’re on about, can we get back to the topic at hand, or does every political discussion have to start and end with things we don’t like about Liberals?

      Some of us cling to the quaint notion that members of the cabinet are responsible for government policy and actions, and are therefore responsible for what they say and do. Okay with you if we carry on with our obscure little notion of responsible government?

      • Justin Trudeau is not the Leader of the Opposition.

        • Yes, right, sorry, I just wanted it to stop.

    • How do you know he didn’t write a check to his favorite charity. And if it wasn’t him..who else would they have paid.

  3. Of course Trudeau didn’t apologize whatsoever. No, instead he hired his lawyers to go through the ethics guidelines with tweezers and a magnifying glass to parse out some technical justification that goes something like this:
    There is nothing illegal in charging non-profits speaking fees (at 10 grand a pop), even when done on his MP salary which involves speaking at such events. Even if Justin was born into immense wealth and the kids (and other benefactors) needed the money desperately while the ten grand just further lined Justing’s already full pockets.
    Morally reprehensible, yes. “Illegal” no.
    Now, back to Moore’s very important rhetorical musings about contributing to the needy.

    • This has been a political broadcast brought to you at public expense by the office of the Prime Minister. Merry Christmas one and all.

      • Isn’t it great to have Soudas back. – it’s just like the old days again.

        • Is his name Charles too? Odd how they get Kody out of moth balls the second he’s back. I wonder if they’re related? Jeez i hope he doesn’t have Dennis F’s number too.

          • Brother from another mother? Maybe Soudas brings his family with him.

          • You can’t buy that kind of loyalty, but it’s certainly available to rent.

    • You don’t need tweezers with Harper’s accountability legislation – if you can fit through a barn door – you’re fine.

      • And if you can’t, there’s a Senate seat with your name on it.

    • ya. Hew could just make ‘recommendations’ while in office and have a sweaty envelope with a big wad of cash given to him in his retirement.

  4. Actually I was a little sloppy with he rhetorical question answer. More accurately, it would be:
    Yes, not me, but a thousand of my neighbors should contribute ten dollars each to the poor children’s charitable fund, then that ten thousand dollars should be paid over to me, after I’ve spoken to the charity for a few minutes.
    A guy has to pay for the expensive vodka after all.
    Now, back to Moore’s rhetorical sins.

    • They all demanded their money back then; and insisted JT never force them to use him as a fundraiser again?

    • Hi biff!

      I see you are as intellectually dishonest as charles as you have been under all your other pseudonyms.

      Cheers!

  5. ” could still be the first sentences of an interesting paper on the role and purpose and place of government.”

    On some planets, yes, but on Earth there is not a single polity anywhere in which it is the government’s job to feed children, not Cuba, not Korea, not anywhere. Pol Pot’s Cambodia is the only example that comes to mind but that didn’t last very long or work out very well. The Incas apparently had a centrally planned economy but that didn’t work out either.

    That a parent should feed their child is not open to debate. For those who say otherwise, how many of your neighbours’ children did you have over for breakfast this morning? Exactly, zero, you hypocrites; you don’t even talk to your neighbours.

    By the by, everything Moore said was true: child poverty is provincial jurisdiction and it really isn’t the feds’ job to serve breakfast every morning to kids. We haven’t quite nationalized empathy yet despite the efforts of some. If you care about Canada, this isn’t a technicality. Try running your national free breakfast plan past Pauline Marois.

    New Fraser Institute report out today. Canadian charitable giving, already way lower than in USA, is declining. This is an obvious and foreseeable consequence of a less homogeneous society. Canadians mouths may say they believe they are their brothers’ keepers but their wallets increasingly tell a different story. Welcome to New Canada.

    • Oh yes. Obviously homogeneous societies are much more generous that diverse societies. It’s just….obvious.

      • I wonder what methodology the FI used? Hope it wasn’t the same one the use for figuring out tax freedom day.
        i’m still trying to figure out where it says child poverty is a provincial responsibility. Has SH added a secret annexe to the BNA? I imagine he rarely bothers to read the 1982 CA.

    • They have a huge food stamp program in the US designed to feed children. However your pals in libertarian and Tea Party circles and trying to eliminate it and bring the US poor kids into that place called Mooreland.

    • Maybe Mulroney and Harper made trade deals that gave away more of our jobs than Reagan and Bush1 and Bush2. And the concept isn’t what we are doing it’s what we should be doing. for those that aren’t contributing they can feel what they feel. and by the way.saying fed your neighbours children does not mean you have to literally pull open the dining room table and whistle out the back door. What a .oh can’t say..it is xmas.

  6. For all the Cons on here….just give it up. It’s beyond the pale. Nothing you say will save him….in fact you’re just making it worse.

    • Well, really, Conservatives shouldn’t be allowed to post at all on here, ever. That would be progressive Utopia.

      • I disagree. I welcome Con demonstrations of their lunacy on any comment board. Please continue to contribute!

        • Objecting to the wealthy Trudeau charging a charity ten grand to speak while being a paid MP: “lunacy”.
          We conservatives have so much to learn from our “progressive” betters.

          • Well you’re masters when it comes to lying, Charlie.

          • Like providing all the facts and context for starter when you set out to criticize someone you don’t happen to like.
            There was a debate to had there over JT’s choices [ which he's since said wasn't such a good idea] but folks like you prevent that by simply expelling noxious fumes out of the other orifice.

          • Those are among your more lucid contributions. Alas, Cons don’t limit their comments to references to Trudeau’s cupidity.

          • Oh the change the subject and it will go away guy.

        • Correction — Conservatives should only be allowed to post in order to demonstrate how stupid they all are and how innately superior all liberals and lefties are to Conservatives. But that’s it.

          • Who is stopping them from posting intelligently?

          • I have always understood from the progressive Wherryites that that is a logical and metaphysical impossibility.

          • I didn’t want to be unkind, it is the Christmas season. Moore obviously forgot to look at the calendar – the deadline for saying Marie Antoinette comments about the poor was last week.

          • Fate, history, nature, nurture… Our best scientists are at a loss to explain this enduring mystery.

          • Hey, I believe in free speech. I don’t agree Con contributions should be limited to their “stupid” ones although, from them, it’s rare (and refreshing) to see any other kind.

          • Yes, Conservatives are SO stupid. I read it all the time in posts from liberals and lefties on these comment boards, so of course it must be true.

          • Hard to argue with you on that.

          • You get offended when people point out the flaws in the thinking of the Cons in general – and the cons who post here in particular – but you never scold Con idiots for being idiots. It’s like Rob Ford blaming his troubles on the Toronto Star rather than blaming his troubles on crack cocaine.

            They can’t be faulted for calling you a bunch of gormless fools when you are, in fact, gormless fools.

          • Further correction -Conservatives got choices too.

          • The resulting conclusions that the general public draw from Conservative rantings are not the responsibility of non-Conservative posters. We can’t help it that Conservatives are shallow and callous, and prone to defend the indefensible when their team steps in a pile.

      • There’s posting and then there’s Con silliness….like you, Bean.

      • Your skin can’t really be that thin surely?

  7. I prefer Rob Ford’s apologies because, being so frequent (and equally insincere), they are at least more concise: “I sincerely, sincerely SINCERELY apologize”.

    • James doesn’t suffer from limited vocabulary. His problem seems to be not knowing when to actually stop saying.

      • the problem is that this surely reinforces the notion that one must never speak off the cuff and that the same, controlled message must be repeated as often as possible, even when it doesn’t fully answer a question (see: Harper, Stephen).
        I would have preferred that this be smaller news, with the quote brought out during the next federal campaign or Conservative leadership drive.

    • If nothing else he’s concise and that seems to turn on the base, and John Marmalade.

  8. James Moore is sorry he’s such a bonehead. But after all, it isn’t his fault. You elected him.

    • So now it’s our fault in addition to the media for misquoting him? That apology must have got lost in the “mail.”

  9. Pity this wasn’t Well’s blog [ sorry AW] i bet he’d let us start a pool on who’s the next pol to attempt to one up Rob before the 25th.
    I’m ruling out Trudeau since someone heavy in the party is undoubtedly tasked to sit on him the moment China and admire seem likely to escape his lips again.
    So far we’ve has PVL insinuate seniors with disabilities ought to get some more able bodied friends or stop sending mail.
    JM claiming provinces are to blame for inability to tackle child poverty, even though the House he belongs to has at least twice unanimously passed motions to do so.
    Mackay seems a likely, but so far he’s allowing judges might come to see it his way even if most petty criminals are criminals cuz they’re continually broke in the first place; so might have some trouble paying victims, which they might not have victimized had they not been broke in the first place…oh well even he must know you can’t get blood out of many of those particular stones.
    It needn’t be a Conservative and my money is on Rob or Doug to end the year strongly. But this season does seem to bring out the inner Scooge in some. Who’s up on deck?

    • I am thinking that our current Ministers of Health and the Environment are target rich candidates. I will be keeping my eyes on them. Mind you there is Calandra and he likes to talk about Santa Claus…

  10. In Stave One of A Christmas Carol (December 1843) charity collectors approach Scrooge:

    “At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

    “Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

    “Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

    “And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

    “They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

    “The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge. [Stave 1: 50-51]

    Later, the Spirit of Christmas Present mocks Scrooge’s former insensitivity by hurling his own words back at him as he regards the appalling children of humanity, Ignorance and Want:

    They were a boy and girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

    Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

    “Spirit! are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.

    “They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree; but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. “Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse! And bide the end!”

    “Have they no refuge or resource?” cried Scrooge.

    “Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. “Are there no workhouses?”

    Dickens said it best.

    • Yes, all Conservatives are mean, greedy and selfish. And Charles Dickens hated Conbots.

      • Who did you think Dickens was writing about, Bean?

        • Conbots, of course

          • Yes, just like you.

            The Tory party came from England, Bean.

          • You are correct.

          • Wow, that poem is oddly applicable to our current situation. The times, they aren’t a-changin’.

    • Thank you for this.

      • Damn right! Did you know that no conservative person has ever contributed to a charity ever? And that all conservatives kick poor people when they pass them on the street? And that conservatives break into poor peoples’ houses and steal what little food poor people have, just out of sheer spite and meanness?
        I’m not making any of this up.

        • I’m honestly kind of indifferent to Moore’s gaffe. When part of your job is talking publicly (even if it’s only to the extent that Master allows), you’re going to plant a wrong foot from time to time.

          Your outraged reaction to people mocking him for saying something mockworthy, on the other hand, is really bringing it to life for me!

          • Unfortunately for him and assuming it was a mistake (which I doubt) the “wrong foot” was planted firmly in his mouth.

        • Oh yes you arrrreee!

        • I believe you.

        • I don’t know how you can post such obvious truths and not have a passle of thumbs-up. What is wrong with you people?

          • I didn’t even mention the puppy mills. True fact: the Conservative Party of Canada owns a bunch of giant puppy mills which continually produce a whole bunch of cute little puppies. These puppies are then shipped off to the residences of all conservatives in Canada for the sole purpose of enabling all conservatives to have a cute little helpless puppy that they can kick first thing in the morning when they get out of bed. My question is: why are more people not outraged about this?

          • And every one of those puppies is named “Justin”!

          • They EAT the puppies. It’s the children they kick.

          • Think of the children! And the puppies! And their breakfast!

          • Unbeknownst to the base, Mr. Harper considers puppy paws and baby’s breath a delicacy reserved for royalty and Canada’s greatest prime minister, Stephen Harper.

          • Baby’s breath would be fresh air compared with breath of the Toronto branch NDP.

          • good one.

          • Well we’re more worried about Justin Whatsit getting in and spending $450,000 a year of taxpayer’s money having little red roses painted on his toenails.

          • Perhaps they can’t handle The Truth.

        • No, actually you aren’t.

          • Well not your dad, Emilechka, he wouldn’t have dared to kick a kid on the street. It might have turned out to be his own.
            .

          • That’s not a very nice thing to say John. Back in the corner you go.

          • Well actually it was a lovely sympathetic thing for me to say.

            You’re obviously not up to date on your Emilechka current events and don’t know who her mother is.

            .

          • back in the corner you go with your dunce cap.

        • Kevin ” I don’t believe in paying taxes” O’Leary is my hero too. Taxes are wasted on starving children immoral single moms and guys to lazy to work. I want my money back!

  11. The thing I found most disturbing was Moore’s “chuckle” at the end of the audio.

    • Well from the looks of it, Moore might think he already has a full time job feeding himself, and perhaps there’s none left for the the neighbour’s children.

    • I agree , and also the LIE that he even said it . What I find more likely , what he is sorry about , is that the reporter taped and released the interview . MP Moore is regarded as a good guy , moderate conservative , if that is true , heaven help us . Was the apology his idea (possible) or forced upon him (probable) .

  12. Why am I expected to pay for breakfast for a child who’s parent earn four or five times more than I do? Kids LOVE the breakfast buffets in school. They aren’t restricted to poor or needy kids because that might make them look … well, poor or needy, and we have to be inclusive. So we get to pay for ALL the kids to have breakie. Sweet deal. For everyone but the taxpayer.

    • Yeah, and why should you be forced to pay for schooling for the little bastards too, right?

      And then there’s how they get police protection and medical services, and the fire department.. all off of your taxes! My god! Next thing you know, they’ll be expecting you to pay for roads and railways that are used by business owners, and they have a lot more cash than you.

      And don’t even get me started on how that rich guy up the road doesn’t even have to pay for his own military.. the nerve of this thing called a society. It’s like they think we might rely on other people around us, even if we don’t know them.

      Go back to bed, Scrooge. Maybe if we’re lucky, the Ghost of Christmas Future will keep you this time.

      • I’m beginning to think people like Barb will soon be calling for the abolition of traffic signals. Why should Kevin O’Leary have to stop his Mercedes and be late for an important meeting, just so some unemployed bum in a bashed up 95 Ford pick-up can proceed through a busy intersection first? Maybe people who own cars over $60th could have an on board light controller to keep lights green ahead.
        I was also wondering if the Harper convoy needed to get him to Parliament Hill stops at red lights on the way?

      • I’m sorry, but did you even read my comment?

        People earning six figures want the taxpayers to buy their children BREAKFAST. Please explain when and why that responsibility was switched from the parents to me, the taxpayer.

        I am more than happy to have my taxes go to schools, roads, military, etc. But breakfast for children who are not living in poverty? Who live in nicer homes than me, whose parents drive nicer cars than me, and they rely on the government to supply breakfast for their children? And that makes me a Scrooge? LOL!

        • People earning six figures want the taxpayers to buy their children SCHOOLING. Please explain when and why that responsibility was switched from the parents to me, the taxpayer.
          I am more than happy to have my taxes go to meals, roads, military, etc. But schooling for children who are not living in poverty? Who live in nicer homes than me, whose parents drive nicer cars than me, and they rely on the government to supply education for their children?

          Yes. It does make you a Scrooge. At least, it makes you the miserly, cheap part of him. Obviously you don’t have the same sense with money that he did, but you can’t have everything, right?

          Seriously, you’d rather pay for roads rich people use before paying for breakfast that rich people’s kids use?

          That’s just screwed up.

          • “People earning six figures want the taxpayers to buy their children SCHOOLING.”

            Did I ever say I had a problem with that?

          • No, but if you honestly can’t see any relation between paying for X for other people’s kids and paying for Y for other people’s kids, you’re dumber than I originally thought.

            And that’s saying something.

          • I think I liked your private message to me better. It made more sense.

            And that’s saying something.

          • ?? Considering I don’t send private messages to people around here, I’m starting to think you’re just off your meds.

          • Default position of a Lefty. Deny, deny, deny.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *