Shelly Glover versus the world -

Shelly Glover versus the world


After last week’s showing, Shelly Glover returned to the national broadcaster’s airwaves this week—at the 15:50 mark of this video—to fight the government’s battle. Liberal Mark Holland was prepared this time, eager to argue that he is not a monster and, when challenged, to assert his own understanding of objective reality. That understanding of objective reality is helpfully seconded by the NDP’s Don Davies.


Shelly Glover versus the world

  1. Except on point number 1 she was 100% correct.

    92% of sex crimes do go unreported.

    Holland is laughable. The legislative hopper has been plugged up by the Liberals and the NDP.

    I'm glad Aaron Wherry has openly declared his sympathy with the coalition. By declaring their view "objective reality" Wherry is throwing neutrality out the window and becoming a partisan editorialist and not a journalist.

    • If they are unreported, where do you get your 92% statistic?

      Curious minds are dying to know.

      Curious lungs are not holding their breath.

      • please cite where we can find the 92% statistic. Best I can find is some estimates, and they are from rape crisis centres in the United States. They also don't seem to use the 92% figure.

      • These apparently come from a Stats Can survey where respondents are asked whether they hav ebeen victims of certain types of crime in the last 5 years, reported or not. From that they deduce the 92% figure.
        But the cons' use of this is pretty selective – these same surveys also apparently demonstrate that crime rates are, wait for it, dropping.
        The conservative don't like that particular statistic, though.

        • I believe I heard Dan Gardner on CBC's Sunday Edition assert that the reason given by most people who claim not to have reported a crime is that they believed the crime "wasn't serious enough to report." Like..huh?

          I can believe sexual assaults going under-reported; many of them are committed by partners, family members and significant others. But other types of crime? I think these surveys are measuring perception and not reality.

          • I heard that too, but remember thinking that it was surprisingly imprecise. If "most" is 51%, it's pretty meaningless; there's still a lot of serious crime going unreported. This is something were we really do need to drill down and understand facts on.

    • Holland is laughable How? In what way? Can you support that statement?

      The legislative hopper has been plugged up by the Liberals and the NDP Even if you believe that to be true, have the Conservatives not twice wiped out law and order bills through prorogation?

      sympathy with the coalition For FOUR years the Conservatives have been at the helm of a minority government. Everything they introduce requires support from another party. Are they in a coalition too?

      You can call yourself Cats, but your arguments are what cats bury in the litter pan

    • Good to know Cats supports Shelley Glover's undying efforts to corner the liars vote.

      How can she sit there and, week after week, just throw out demonstrably false statements like the Liberals voting against these bills?

      • Q "How can she sit there and, week after week, just throw out demonstrably false statements like the Liberals voting against these bills? "
        A She works for Stephen 'It-Doesn't-Have-To-Be-True-Just-Believable' Harper

        • It doesn't even have to be believable, it just has to sound Angry on the TV.

      • She admitted in the piece that this very case is what got her interested in politics in the first place. I haven't followed Ms Glover's political career, but if her burning desire began with sex offender punishment stuff, must she not have to acknowledge at least to herself that she hasn't been that effective if the very case that outraged her then, outrages her now?

        • You've done nothing to serve this country.

          How dare you make such an ungreatful attack.

          By all accounts she is an amazing policewoman. Even diehard partisans who detest her politics agree.


          • we could use less ad hominem around here pls Cats

          • Tell that to Jenn_

            I have no problem with people criticizing politicians.

            But criticizing what someone did in their previous life as a dedicated public servant who by all accounts performed tremendously is beyond the pale.

            Lets keep our politics clean and respectful.

            Less ad hominem pls!

          • Jenn did not criticize anything Glover did in her previous life, she made the point that whatever Glover's rhetoric on getting involved in politics or the priorities of her party, she and her party have failed to deliver any major reform. this is an accurate criticism.

            you misrepresent her remarks and in response you declared that Jenn has never done anything to serve her country (a falshehood). this is the very nature of what we want to discourage here. thanks.

          • Ok i've had enough of the good cop routine.

            You're defeding some pretty dirty remarks under the guise of trying to clean this place up.

            You're not the moderator. If you have something to say then say it yourself.

            Stop hiding behind the "i'm just a nice guy" thing. Attacking the people who defend us and keep our streets safe is not acceptable.

            Defending those who dont' is too. That's the nature of what we need to discourage here. thanks.

          • Why do we hate the troops?

            And cops?

          • uhm, i did say it. you are twisting the meaning of Jenn's word and thus unjustly attacking a well-respected participant here.

          • You don't know what I've done to serve this country. And while it isn't much, I am trying, and spending a lot of my time doing so. What are you doing?

            I admit, my comment was ungreat. But it was not ungrateful. It wasn't even particularly critical of Ms. Glover. I have no opinion on Ms Glover as policewoman since she isn't one now, she's a politician. I know myself that trying to accomplish something and succeeding in accomplishing something are often two very different things. I'm just saying that if her purpose for getting into politics was to end the pardoning of sex offenders (something I am completely behind her on) she hasn't been that effective.

        • Jenn's comment turns out to be exactly on the mark. regardless of Glover's and CPC rhetoric on pardons, this government was quite happy with pardon system, including with regards to sex offenders:

          • Thanks very much for sticking up for me, sea_n_mountains, and for alerting me (by replying to my comment) that more was going on here. It is so difficult to keep up during tax season!

      • Also, why did you steal Ted Betts's avatar?

        • I didn't it was me. I don't know why Jamie came up in the name. I'm on a generic computer though (not my own) and have to keep logging back in. Strange.

    • What's laughable is using a statistic RIGHT AFTER you said the statistics don't matter. Hello in there!!!

    • I see Shelly's staffers are paying Macleans a visit today.

      • Next they'll be writing letters to the editors.

        • And then Marlene Jennings will be asking the Ethics commish to look into Glovers mortgage.

          • Why would Jennings do that?

    • So what statistic about unreported sex crimes would make Lib commenters happy ? Since it can only be an estimated number, would you be pleased if the figure was 89% or maybe 78% ? If unreported sex crimes was estimated to be only 65% of the total would that be acceptable in your eyes ?

      Honestly, you guys are so obsessed with thumbing down those you disagree with, that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

      • I just thumbed you down.

      • Give me a break. If it is an estimate, what is it based on? Just a number she thought was high or some studies? Did she just ask around the office? The nature of the statistic – unreported crimes – kinda sorta means it is not an easily calculatable statistic.

        No one is even questioning the number. We are just asking where it came from. It seems commenters here are not afraid of facts.

        To ask about the source of unsubstantiated numbers from a person who rejects outright statistics that simply don't support her case, is more than fair.

        • Next, since the official crime rate is based on incidents reported to police, does the reported crime reflect the actual crime rate? The answer is no. The real crime rate is much higher.

          Every five years, Statistics Canada conducts the General Social Survey. It asks a representative sample of Canadians, among other things, whether they have been crime victims.

          From the last survey in 2004 (the next one is being conducted now, with the findings to be released next year) Statistics Canada reached the following conclusions.

          First, progressively fewer Canadians who are crime victims are reporting the crime to police — only 34% in 2004, compared to 37% in 1999.

          Second, based on the GSS, an estimated 92% of sexual assaults were never reported to police, 46% of break-ins, 51% of motor vehicle/parts thefts, 61% of physical assaults and 54% of robberies." Lorrie Goldstein, The Sun, Nov 2009

      • So what is Glover's plan for increasing the reporting of crimes? Last time I checked the justice system can only deal with reported crimes.

  2. Such a shame that reality continues to hold such a liberal-bias.

    As they say (more frequently when conservatives are in power methinks), you are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.

    • "The facts of life are conservative"
      -Margaret Thatcher

      Oh, irony….

      • That may even be true. But the facts of political argument, clearly are not.

  3. Shelley is spot on and this lady knows her stuff – she makes the critics looks silly and ill prepared but I guess it's damn hard to argue with someone who actually KNOWS what they are talking about! Go ahead thumb me down fols but … mark my words here .. this lady is dynamite and devfinitely going places – and she's hot as well!

    • Shelly Glover is a burgeoning morass of talent and should be promoted to the uppermost echelons the Conservative cabinet, so people across Canada can hear her words, directly from her mouth, without any third party introduction or interference.

      It would be, I suspect, a breath of fresh air upon the whole nation.

    • "Go ahead thumb me down fols but … mark my words here .. this lady is dynamite and devfinitely going places – and she's hot as well!"

      This bravado in aid of what the commenter knows full well is nonsense is so amusing it deserves multiple thumbs up.

      Unfortunately, there are only so many thumbs up available and far be it from any of us, especially conservatives, to waste scarce resources.

    • I've long suspected that you've been mocking us with ridiculous statements and taking the hardest stance you could without tipping your hand, but now I know for sure.

      ".. this lady is dynamite and devfinitely going places – and she's hot as well! "

      You're really Scott Feschuk stringing us along, right? Cuz that's just one toke over the line, sweet jesus, one toke over the line.

    • I've long suspected that you've been mocking us with ridiculous statements and taking the hardest stance you could without tipping your hand, but now I know for sure.

      ".. this lady is dynamite and devfinitely going places – and she's hot as well! "

      You're really Scott Feschuk stringing us along, right? Cuz that's just one toke over the line, sweet jesus, one toke over the line.

      • I'm glad someone else sees it, it is so painfully obvious that he is trolling, yet he get's so many bites. This one wasn't even a good troll. She's hot? He may as well have lifted that off of a thread somewhere else about Sarah Palin…

  4. Yet another example of how reality and conservative viewpoints tend to be two separate beasts entirely.

  5. Psiclone:

    She lied. Flat out lied about what bills the Liberals have supported and opposed.

    She doesn't know her stuff at all.

    • Also: "hot" is subjective, but seriously?

      Sure, she might be "office hot" or "conservative caucus hot" but the lady is not "hot" by any definition I'm acquainted with.

      • Hot as in her pants are on fire?

        • Hot as in a hot potato?

          • Cat on a Hot Spin Goof?

    • I wonder if she knows who Tom Flanagan is, yet?

  6. You're not going to get anything from them Matty.

    They will say anything and everything to support their ideological and partisan viewpoint, regardless of the truth.

    Say Anything Steve has trained his disciples well. Power is everything.

  7. Can someone explain how 'unreported' crime justifies mandatory minimums and more prisons?

    • Really good point.

    • That's a blank screen.

      • You must be one of Holland`s staffers.

      • It got less blank once I opened the reply's.

        On the subject. This lady is whacked. Doesn't know who Tom Flanagan is? Gimme a break!

  8. Yes, it would be. We need our own Sarah Palin, now that Helena Guergis has proven herself unworthy of that exalted mantle.

  9. If you build it, they will report it.

    • If they build it, they're gonna fill it. Sounds like the're going to round up all those who've been pardoned and give 'em life. This will be the mother of all stimulus projects.

  10. Glover says that it's okay for Toews not to have known about Graham James' pardon but the then-Liberal government should have known about her investigation (BREAKING NEWS) of Graham James in Winnipeg? WHAT?

    She is looking a wee bit crazy. Doesn't help that she lies about the status of legislation and who supported what, and who shut it down through prorogation.

    So by all means put her in cabinet. At the highest levels even. She'll fit in fine.

    • I see no reason for the words "a wee bit" to be in your second paragraph.

  11. Whenever I hear a story about a politician acting this way, I always think about one of my favourite quotes from Adam Savage (from the "Mythbusters") when he was once shown video of himself actually saying something which contradicted his stated memory of what he had said. In response to the video evidence that reality was in fact different from his perception of reality, Savage (somewhat famously) said:

    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own".

  12. I have no idea who voted what in any random Committee, and I don`t really care because if the Libs had wanted to water down justice legislation, they always had the Senate. But we do know that the Party of prisoners rights has always been the Liberals and the Party of victims rights has been the Conservatives.

    Also, Is the Liberal Party on some kind of self-destruct mode ?
    Really, You have Mark Holland as your family affairs rep. He just doesn`t seem like your family guy kind of guy.

    • "I have no idea who voted what in any random Committee, and I don`t really care…"

      It's not nice to pretend you're someone else, Ms. Glover.

    • Damn strait, common man. I much prefer to get my family values from Jason Kenney and Vic Toews.

    • Holland's no Baird or Kenney – I'll give you that.

    • Tell me what piece of legislation the Conservatives have passed in their over 4 years of governing that supports victims of crime?

    • Canadian Conservatives come out of the woodwork for a celebration of their ignorance?

      I guess if we are taking up broad generalizations like But we do know that the Party of prisoners rights has always been the Liberals and the Party of victims rights has been the Conservatives, you will also be happy to agree that we all know that the Party of deficits has always been the Conservatives and the Party of effective financial management has been the Liberals, right?

  13. Another "star" Conservative MP with nothing better to do than attempt to bait the opposition and the Canadian public with misinformation. What a surprise.

  14. Shelley Glover is one heck of an MP. During Trudeau's juvenile behaviour last week, she was composed and very impressive.

    As for this week's discussion… She was impressive once again, and there's no question that you do not visit Wherry's blog for a glimpse of "objective" reality.

    • One heck of a Conservative MP who apparently has no idea who Tom Flanagan is?

      That's one mighty thin bench you got there on the government side of the aisle…

      • What the heck does knowledge of Tom Flanagan have to do with anything? If you surveyed the Canadian population, 1% would know who he is. 0.5% of Canadians have heard of Wayne Easter or Mark Holland.

        • You don't find it strange that she would claim not to know her leader's former chief of staff? One of the architects on the modern Canadian Conservative movement?

          your definition of intelligence is curious.

          • And the election campaign chair in 2006.

          • No. Name me the Liberal and NDP election campaign chair in 2006. Can't do it? Thought so. NOw name me any single other professor at U of Calgary. Can't do it? Thought so.

            Architect of modern conservatism? LOL I'm sure he's flattered by your kindness.

          • Well, since I'm not actually an MP, It's unreasonable to expect me to know that.

            Her being an MP would mean that, had she ever spoken to or interacted with the PMO…she would have gone through Tom. Thus, it would be surprising that she never ran across the gent at a caucus meeting, strategy session, policy retreat weekend., etc…

          • In other words, you're saying that you know less than all MPs. Interesting. I'll keep that in mind.

          • You know what? You don't ever respond to points that poke holes in your statements. The best you can do is insults That's ok. I'm done wasting my time with you. Perhaps some others would like to feed the troll.

    • Indeed, she has skills.

      • Kinky. This photo rates a caption challenge.

        • She's looking for Conservative transparency and accountability

          • she might be in that position for a while.

    • Here's an objective reality SCF: did the Liberals vote for the vicitms of crime legislation that the Conservatives have twice thrown out the window as the Liberals and the NDP suggest or did they vote against it as only Shelly Glover suggest?

      • Really? You're going to base your analysis of the Liberal position on how the Liberals actually voted, instead of just throwing out stereotypical platitudes completely divorced from reality?

        I don't know what s_c_f's gonna do with that!

    • Objective viewers know that Shelley's characterization of her move into politics and the priorities of the government is far more credible than Holland's political trick of downplaying the issue .

      There you have it everyone. Irrationally stoking fears of a non-existent rise in crime is much more credible than, what's it called again? REALITY.

      It's not important that what the Tories say be true, what's important is whether of not they can credibly CONVINCE YOU that it's true.

      • I can make up my own mind – I choose my party, they don't convince me, I choose them.

        • Hey, you can make up your own mind all you want. We're just reminding you that your choice was based on lies and misinformation. We're not actually trying to change YOUR mind, we're just helping others by ensuring both sides of the argument are out there.

          So people can, you know, make up their own minds.

          • You have absolutely no idea how I make my choices. Aren't you arrogant.

        • Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the Tories need to convince you of the veracity of their fiction over the veracity of reality. I know you choose them regardless. They're your lobster. You've mated with them for life.

          I simply meant to point out that for many Canadians, the person who describes REALITY in laying out the rationale for their policy position is generally considered to be the MORE credible speaker, not the less.

          • To me credibility and reliability are related. Glover has more credibility in her big toe than you do altogether. You're the same guy who was convinced the Tiger Woods story was contrived and that he was completely innocent.

            Secondly, once again, as I said to M_A_N, you have absolutely no idea whether I've mated with anyone with life. Aren't you arrogant.

          • OK, I'll admit it. Unlike everyone else, who all immediately believed TMZ, I found the initial reports of Tiger freaking Woods being chased down the street at 2 in the morning (in an SUV) by his (on foot) iron wielding wife, who forced him off the road and beat him, to be difficult to believe. Silly me, I was wrong. The difference between me with Tiger, and the Tories with crime is that when I was presented with facts that contradicted my earlier suppositions I CHANGED MY VIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH REALITY. If I followed the Tory example, I'd STILL be claiming that Tiger is innocent, all evidence to the contrary be damned. So, my track record is that when presented with evidence which contradicts my assumptions, I change my assumptions. The Tories? Not so much.

            Also, I didn't mean to imply anything with the mating comment, I just wasn't sure if people would get my Phoebe Buffay "Friends" reference ("Awww, he's her lobster…") without a second, somewhat explanatory sentence.

            I now await your second, explanatory sentence to clear up "you have absolutely no idea whether I've mated with anyone with life". I don't want this post to be too cheeky (as I said above, I really didn't mean anything by the lobster line) but I do think it's important that we clarify that you were in no way implying that you've ever mated with anyone "without life". 'Cause I think that's illegal.

            Also, what's with Glover's toe? Is it , like, magic or something?

          • I don't know, I decided to use the "toe" expression twice.

            Anyway, you guys can keep on repeating the words reality and objective and whatnot, but the smugness is not attractive. Repeating the words does not mean they're true.

            There is no need to change my views. Nothing has changed since the Cons came to power (read Andrew Coyne's latest for details). The Libs are no different and the Cons are doing fine. Trying to smeat a very good MP like Glover is not gonna change that.

            I know it must be fun for you to come to Aaron Iglayton's blog with your partisan friends and spend your time insulting Conservatives, but it's you guys who are living in a bubble when you do that.

          • Hey, I didn't mean to "smear" anyone, I just fail to understand how one person can say that we need to get tough on crime because it's a big growing problem, and another person can point out that based on the research evidence it's statistically simply not at all true that crime is a growing problem, and yet, when it comes to crime, Tories will always find the person who speaks to their gut is "more credible" than the person who uses research and facts.

            The reason we keep using the words "objective" and "reality" is because we're flummoxed that we keep hearing subjective fiction from the Tories on this file, they keep trotting it out there as though they don't CARE about "reality", and we simply can't fathom how anyone could argue from that position and consider it to be credible.

            It's like we're at that point with our kids where we just can't seem to figure out how to convince them that there is no Pandora, and no giant blue aliens with tails, so we've stopped trying to tweak the argument over and over again, and coming at it from different angles, and all we do now is just keep saying "There is no Pandora, it's not real" to them. Over, and over, and over again.

            I do admit that, with you, it's probably wasted effort. Given the great 3D special effects, I guess we'll just never convince you that IT'S JUST NOT REAL.

          • Glover has backed your statement about crime. Perhaps you disagree, but to assert that you're right and she's wrong, that's the bubble I was talking about.

            You seem to confuse reality with your opinion. The two are not the same. They sometimes coincide, and sometimes they do not.

            You've got a great bubble going hear. One or two dissenting opinions pop into the blog and whammo, here comes idiotic statements to the tune of "we'll just never convince you that IT'S JUST NOT REAL".

          • That's all well and good, but still, Pandora's no more real, the blue aliens are no more real, and crime rates still aren't rising.

  15. Ah, poignancy. Ruined by bad use of URL tags.

  16. Our Right Wing friends seem to think that they have in Glover their very own Sarah Palin. You know, somebody who "drives the lefties crazy!" Of course in their rush to annoint Shelley Glover "Canada's Caribou Barbie" they're missing one key fact – both of them are duplicitous and dumb as stumps.

    What drives us crazy about them is not so much that they're morons, but that conservatives keep acting as if they're not paralyzingly stupid.

    • Glover's big toe is smarter than you.

      • My big toe at least knows who Tom Flanagan is.

        ipso fatso – my big toe is smarter than Glover.

        • But your big toe is smarter than you! Unless we go the paradox route of your big toe being a part of your "you-ness" – can a part be greater than the sum of which it is a part?

      • That's hard to prove. We'd ask the toe, but it spends an inordinate amount of time in Glover's mouth.

  17. Holland was poised in making the simple point that that have had four years do something and either don't care that much (i.e., they have made decisions that run counter to any assertion that they make that they consider this to be urgent (e.g., prorogation)) or that they are incompetent (i.e., they haven't been able to deliver bills that are capable of earning the support of the majority of the House and Senate)….although it has actually been a touch of both.

    Other notes: 1) Adam, there was a disagreement over a simple matter of fact (who voted for and against legislation), care to clear this up?

    2) i like how she talked over Holland after making such a big deal of the same with Trudeau (who was obnoxious and amateurish in the preceding interview).

  18. She's a Metis woman who's overcome an abusive upbringing, dedicated her life to law and order issues, while raising several children.

    If Glover was a candidate in my riding I would definitely factor those characteristics into my decision. I would also include some other characteristics which would be less favourable.

  19. She's a common sense woman who's accomplished more that virtually everyone in the Liberal party.

    She's a Metis woman who's overcome an abusive upbringing, dedicated her life to law and order issues, while raising several children.

    Of course the partisan hacks here are attacking her ferociously.

    They have much to fear and lament. She's the face of the conservative party,

    while a silver spoon, Ivy league elitist academic bred from Russian aristocracy is the face of the Liberals.

    You are wise to fear her, liberal partisan hacks.

    • "She's the face of the conservative party,"

      The Liberal Party of Canada certainly hopes so.

  20. And Rahim Jaffer is of a visible minority group…apparently, doesn't make him any less slick, or influence peddling or odious or claimant to have direct access into the PM's office! what's your point Chet?

  21. Oh – and Rahim Jaffer probably DOES know who Tom Flanagan is…