The angry, radical right

Why a growing number of extremists are lashing out publicly at Muslim immigrants—and Justin Trudeau


 
  119
Ripped faded Candian flag.  Brian Kennedy/Getty Images

Brian Kennedy/Getty Images

Lawrence Witko doesn’t actually want Justin Trudeau dead, he swears. Nor does he really want to kill all Muslims, moderate or otherwise, or hope for the mass killing of Palestinian children. “I hate violence, period. I don’t want to have to be ranting on like this,” Witko says.

In the physical world, Witko is a 65-year-old caretaker and erstwhile corrections officer who may well abhor violence and love carpentry. Online, though, it is a very different story. For roughly a year, Witko has been posting commentary to the Facebook page of Never Again Canada, a stridently pro-Zionist website that has become a hotbed of anti-Trudeau and anti-Muslim rhetoric. Witko is among the page’s most prolific contributors.

“Trudeau and his precious [wife] Sophie are both liars and teach their children to be the same way. Mark my words on the wall, this piece of s–t will turn on his own and be as treacherous as Sadam [sic] Hussein was to the Iraquis [sic]. Trudeau has to go—one way or another, he has to go . . . Lock n Load . . . ” Witko wrote on the Never Again Canada Facebook page on Dec. 10. Muslims, he wrote in a typical post, “are a useless, diseased race of subhumans who are bent on destroying Western society. Witko says he was visited by the RCMP about two weeks after his “Lock N Load” post, though he wasn’t charged with anything.

He was first drawn to Never Again Canada for what he calls “the truth”: that the country’s left-leaning federal and provincial governments, along with its mainstream media, have purposefully minimized the threat of Islam to Western civilization. Witko, like many of the roughly 25,000 people who have “liked” the page, believe the Muslim threat has escalated considerably with the election of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government in October. At the very least, they believe Trudeau is doing radical Islam’s bidding by allowing Muslims into his government and, with the Syrian refugees, into the country he governs.

Such commentary has long been relegated to the more pungent recesses of the Internet and online commentary sections of news publications—and it remains there, for the most part. Yet politicians on both sides of the spectrum acknowledge that hateful and at times violent commentary has, in the words of Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, “become a little more socially acceptable now.”

Wildrose leader Brian Jean. (Jeff McIntosh/CP)

Wildrose leader Brian Jean. (Jeff McIntosh/CP)

It became such a concern for Brian Jean, the leader of Alberta’s populist Wildrose Party and the leader of the province’s official Opposition, that he stopped his relentless criticism of the province’s left-wing NDP government long enough to ask his Facebook followers to stop threatening to murder Alberta Premier Rachel Notley.

“Over the last few days, I’ve seen far too many hateful and even violent social media posts directed toward our political opponents,” Jean wrote in a Facebook missive two weeks before Christmas. “This needs to stop. These kinds of comments cross all bounds of respect and decency and have absolutely no place in our political discourse. This is not how Albertans behave.”

Jean says he felt compelled to go public after being struck by the number and nature of the threats against Notley. They began, Jean said, shortly after the Notley government introduced a farm safety law that extended compensation rights to farm workers. Bill 6, as it is known, sparked demonstrations from Alberta farmers, who worried it would prohibit them from hiring temporary labourers and recruiting volunteers.

“I’ve never had to do anything like this in my political career,” says Jean, a 12-year veteran of federal and provincial politics, of his note. “There was open hatred and actual threats of life. I even got threats myself after I posted the message. It shows the level some people will go to. It’s not helpful. It absorbs the importance of the discussion itself.”

The RCMP, meanwhile, has seen an uptick in threats against Trudeau, according to police sources. “It’s somewhat expected, because Trudeau is anathema to right-wing extremists, and right-wing extremists tend to be the most explicit and reckless of those who make these kinds of threats,” says a former member of the RCMP’s threat-assessment group, a national security unit that safeguards domestic and visiting political leaders, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he remains a member of the RCMP.

Joel Addams/Getty Images

Joel Addams/Getty Images

Much of the rhetoric comes from a range of online groups whose ideologies vary as much as their popularity. Pegida Canada and Canadian Defence League, for example, are offshoots of European anti-Islamic groups. Others, including Separation of Alberta from the Liberal East, have specific Canadian political goals. Others still are Zionist in nature, including the Jewish Defence League and Christians United For Israel. With its 25,000 followers, Never Again Canada looms large.

The Never Again Canada Facebook page first appeared in mid-2014. The group, such as it is, bills itself as an “organization dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, propaganda, terror and Jew hatred in Canada . . . Hatred is like cancer, the more you don’t treat it and ignore it, the worse it gets.” Its page, often updated several times an hour, is almost uniquely dedicated to criticism of Justin Trudeau—sometimes referred to as “Justine”—and Islam. (“Never Again” is an apparent reference to the slogan of the Jewish Defence League, the U.S.-based militant Zionist organization, which has a chapter in Canada.)

The commentators on Never Again are a hodgepodge of Zionists, former and current military, Christian militants, the occasional white nationalist—an irony, given that the white nationalist movement isn’t typically very charitable toward Jews—and many anti-Muslim types like Witko and Larry Langenauer. A 67-year-old small business owner, Langenauer says he began posting on Never Again’s Facebook page four months ago.

On Dec. 10 Langenauer wrote that “the most convincing non-confidence statement” against Trudeau would be to shoot him. He has made similar threats about the Saudi-born Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, who was recently appointed parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs. (In Canada, uttering threats is an offence punishable by up to five years in jail. Committing hate speech is punishable by up to two years in jail.)

“I guess anyone that feels that way is probably thinking that [Trudeau] is the man who almost single-handedly, with the people in office with him, has enabled violent immigrants,” Langenauer said in a recent telephone interview from his Montreal home. “It’s their responsibility. Why would Canada be exempt from this type of behaviour by the radical Islamic immigrants? They say they’re refugees, they’re not really refugees. People are going to resent it, and eventually they will act upon it toward the people whom they feel are responsible.”

Never Again Canada was founded by Abraham Shomer, a web developer based in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill. “We provide a platform for ideas,” Shomer said in an email. “Our administrators include men and women who are either Jewish, Christian, atheist or Muslim. We do not condone any violence or threats of violence whatsoever against any person or group.”

Shomer says the site has three million weekly “post reaches”—the number of people who have seen its posts. About 85 per cent of its audience is in Canada, Shomer adds.

A notice went up on the site shortly after Maclean’s contacted Shomer about threats against Trudeau. “Such comments will not be tolerated on our page,” read the declaration. “We encourage our fans to report potential threats to our national security to CSIS and the RCMP directly.” It went on to suggest that these threats were the work of “radical Islamic groups seeking to defame our good name.”

The reason behind the quick escalation, and breadth, of the rhetoric is a matter of some discussion. The Internet has long been a ready forum for instant, anonymous emotional gratification—though by insisting that its users use their real name, Facebook has made things a little less anonymous.

For many critics, there are dangerous similarities between the mass migration of Muslim refugees to Europe, and the economic and social challenges it has created, and the Liberal government’s plan to allow Syrian refugees into the country. Economic woes often go hand in hand with anti-immigration and refugee sentiment.

“There may be a bit of a gestalt, where you have Donald Trump in the U.S. and the things he says about Muslims, combined with the attacks in Paris, combined with some really divisive rhetoric on all sides during the last federal election,” says Nenshi.

Then there is the change in Canada’s political status quo wrought by that election. Following the 2011 federal election, the Liberal party was a leaderless shambles, having lost its third consecutive election to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. With the progressive vote split between the sagging Liberals and a resurgent NDP, Harper’s Conservatives were seemingly well positioned to win another at least. And yet four years later, the Liberals are now ensconced in power, while all but one of the provinces have leftist or centrist governments. Saskatchewan is the lone conservative holdout.

“Canada has 1½ conservative premiers,” says political commentator Ezra Levant. (The half in question is Christy Clark, British Columbia’s more right-leaning Liberal premier.) “Everyone else is on the left. The federal government, the courts, the media, popular culture, universities and student groups: they’re all on the left.”

Ezra Levant. (Michael Peake/Toronto Sun/QMI Agency)

Ezra Levant. (Michael Peake/Toronto Sun/QMI Agency)

Levant saw a business opportunity in the dearth of conservative voices in the country. Last February, he launched The Rebel, a conservative news and commentary site. The Rebel reports extensively and obsessively on the supposed spread and threat of political Islam. And it spends a considerable amount of bandwidth decrying, as one Rebel contributor put it last fall, the “decadent and debauched leftist ideology” of Justin Trudeau. While the site echoes many of the concerns of the extreme right, its contributors do not resort to threats, or trade in that kind of violent rhetoric.

The uninitiated visitor to The Rebel might be forgiven for thinking that under the Trudeau government, Canada has gone from being a staunch critic of radical Islam to radical Islam’s anteroom—a place where political correctness stifles criticism of Islam, and radicalized Muslims spread sharia law and tuberculosis on an unsuspecting citizenry.

“I’m not actually scared of being killed by a terrorist,” says Levant. “If anyone in Toronto would be, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was me, because I speak against Islam. But I think the likelihood of that happening is very low. The likelihood of political Islam changing our culture is not low. It is 100 per cent. It is already happening,” he says.

Rebel business is booming, according to Levant. “We’ve had a number of days [with] over 100,000 visits, and the trend is up. I thought things would have peaked with the election in October, but actually they continued to grow, partly because of what is happening federally, partly because of what is happening [with the Notley government] in Alberta, and because of what is going on with the Muslim migration to Europe,” he says.

Levant steadfastly denounces violent threats against anyone almost as quickly as he laughs off the many he says he’s received as a result of his work. But Rebel reporting and commentary is frequently used favourably as fodder on many anti-Trudeau and anti-Muslim forums, Pegida and Never Again Canada included. Levant himself isn’t above indulging in the milder invective seen on these sites.

Trudeau “is stupid. He’s the kind of guy who says, ‘I don’t know pi to the 18th decibel point.’ He’s stupid. Do you think he knows the difference between Hamas and hummus? He is stupid,” went one typical Levant rant, unleashed during a recent phone interview.

Levant suggests that those threatening Trudeau, Notley et al. are just “venting.” Indeed, when pressed on his online postings, Langenauer said he doesn’t actually wish any ill on Trudeau. “That’s just anger. That’s just venting. I don’t think anybody should be killed for any reason. I don’t even believe in hunting. My wife and I are vegetarians,” he told Maclean’s.

“You typically see most of [this appear] early in a leader’s mandate, and then dissipate as the extremists become distracted by other events and issues,” says the RCMP source.

Though Lawrence Witko says Trudeau is a dangerous nuisance who should be removed “by any means necessary,” as he has written, he says he is too old to do anything himself. “Let’s put it this way. If [Trudeau’s] plane went down, I would probably be doing the happy dance.” An assassination, he says, “would take balls. I’m too old for that. I’m 65, with a herniated disk and a bum ticker.”

Instead, his plan is to move north to live in the bush, well away from an Internet connection and the governing Liberal elites. He recently applied for a firearms acquisition certificate. A man’s got to eat, after all.

—with Charlie Gillis


 

The angry, radical right

  1. Hey, remember all those shocked and appalled articles Maclean’s ran about the non-stop threats against PM Harper at Rabble.ca etc?

    Maclean’s: From fighting belligerent Muslims to sneering at “the supposed spread and threat of political Islam” in just ten years.

    Jesus, they had to shoot up Charlie Hebdo to get THEM to back off.

    Oh, I guess that “joke” is a “threat” too. Martin has always struggled with that distinction…

    • Kathy is just upset because they didn’t interview her for the story and she’s been spouting hateful rhetoric for years.

        • Yep…

          I should have left it to Ezra….he wripped Marty a new one…and made it look easy.

      • Kevin, did you notice this part of the article?

        “The Rebel reports extensively and obsessively on the supposed spread and threat of political Islam”

        the very fact Mr. Patriquin can write “supposed spread and threat of political Islam” is evidence enough that he hasn’t got a clue about that which he writes. there are clues all around him…..in the form of slaughtered infidels in multiple countries, and sexaully assaulted women in much of Europe after accepting these “poor immigrants”

        Marty is writing based on the narrative he’s composed in his own mind….he’s not basing it on any evidence which proves he is correct.

  2. Deny this person a firearm certificate, he’s made death threats.

    The lunatic right wing racist extremist need to move down south, Texas is where they belong.

    • Actually, it’s the Left that are the violent / stupid half of society! Ever notice that every violent protest is Lefty’s? From the G20 on down? And yup, they’re stupid too!! Typically knowing nothing of what they speak. How many of you Lefty’s think the Burqa is “just another piece of clothing”? In fact, the closest thing in modern history you could liken it to is the Swastika! But Lefty’s would never know, because they refuse to read books. They’d never read; The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, or God is Not Great, or Delectable Lie. It’s been a HUGE problem for over 90yrs that they refuse to read things they don’t like. Joseph Hayek, when he wrote The Road to Serfdom in the 40’s complained about it.

      • LRFU…

        I agree completely. the most violent, most intolerant people I have ever met, were exclusively from the left. they like to be called “Progressive” at the same time they are trying to censore you or shut you up; often with threats and actual violence.

      • What a pantload, JAMESHALIFAX! In the US, the crazies who love to hate are predominantly drawn to the Republican party (the right wing). Example: David Duke, the former Louisiana politician and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard says Trump is “head and shoulders” above the rest”. What?! A RIGHT WING leader gets the KKK’s endorsement!? – Heck, why not, everyone knows those KKK dudes dont hate, right? Get real LRFU and JAMESHALIFAX! Witko and Langenauer are perfect examples of haters and your comments point to your inclusion in that foul mindset. It’s one thing to want a government gone…and it’s totally another to wish harm to its leader and do ‘a happy dance’ if it the PM’s plane goes down! As a leftist, I wasn’t very happy with Harper’s policies, but I didn’t wish the former PM dead! But then again, my mindset is more Liberal and tolerant isn’t it. I guess, unlike you, I’d make a lousy fascist.

        Trump, the leading GOP candidate, himself said that he would ban all Muslims! Had folks of his ilk been in power in the early 20th century, there would have been no Irish immigration to the US and God knows how many other immigrants would have been shut out too. Trump says such outrageous things knowing full well that those who are prone to fear irrationally and hate easily are his natural constituency. Indeed, divisive policies germinate well in the right wing mind largely because they’re already so full of ‘fertilizer’ that haters feel they can plant their foul idealogy there and watch it grow and thrive (as it did in Nazi Germany). Furthermore, there’s no place like the right wing’s FOX news for made-up and transparently-biased journalism. I recall that Obama had barely become president when he was being tarred by those right wing media nuts for things leftover from the Bush years that Obama had nothing to do with!

        Yes, inclusiveness is a Liberal policy that really irritates the right because that means they’re being encouraged to get along with those who are DIFFERENT! Thankfully the more normal elements of the Republican party decry Trump’s low-brow approach to politics. Sure, Islam has generated its share of radical swine, but ISIS et al are a viciously foul and small minority of the billion plus Muslims in the world. They dont represent ALL Muslims!

        Btw LRFU, I read continuously and widely…your woefully-limited library has kept your mind in its thrall and has only educated you to hate things you don’t understand. That’s not balanced reading, it’s more akin to Brainwashing For Idiots. Those titles are hardly works that appeal to one’s better nature.

        • Yeah, Reg, but this is Canada. Lefties aren’t allowed across the border let alone into Texas.

    • Have you tried going to Youtube and punching in something like, Islam in Europe, or Britain? Maybe you should do some homework?

  3. “The angry, radical right”

    Really?

    Hardly.

    There has not been an angry or radical right in Canada since the days of the US of A commie hunt.

    The soft, spoiled and entitled Canadian only thinks there is an “The angry, radical right” – they are so entitled as to have never seen the other side of the street.

    Canadians have lived such a sheltered life that yelling at them makes them cry.

    That hodge-podge of soldiers that the writer “sneered at” with his sideways swipe are probably the only people left in Canada with a back bone and a willingness to stand up and be counted.

    There are people – who are ticked off – that I will admit.

    However that smarmy style of reporting – if one could call it that – happened during the last federal administration as well – yet this magazine and EVERY media outlet in Canada – on a daily basis continued to castigate the “The angry, radical right”. I am so used to seeing this biased and unbalanced news that even I – a person who once could have been considered an “The angry, radical right” wonder – where if ever will there be a balance?

    There are people who are outspoken – who see money being spent on things outside Canada while the seniors take a back seat for medical, housing and more. They see the federal government lying about costs and tossing billions away to other countries with no money or jobs for Canadians. And it frustrates them.

    Then they see a magazine like this one calling them names, when your “radical right” see themselves as realists.

    Reporters calling the same people, who pay taxes – names – all the while raking in some cash off of this heavily federal subsidized magazine – subsidized with tax dollars from “The angry, radical right”.

    In fact this is not a report of the news – it is an opinion piece – and very one sided at that – making this “The angry, radical LEFT” rebuttal to a perceived “The angry, radical right” group of folks.

    Perhaps the “angry, radical right” are realists and not “The angry, radical right”.

    After all without federal funding this magazine – MacLean’s – would fail.

    You can be sure MacLean’s would not want to lose that federal funding.

    You can find this information if you do your due diligence – bet no one does.

    So smarmy reporters for MacLean’s – a federally subsidized magazine – do the cbc thing – and tell the world that all the people who do not like the government are “The angry, radical right”.

    Name calling. How nice.

    Subtle and yet in your face.

    And do this while taking money from those “angry, radical right” tax payers through their taxes – money from the very people they denigrate.

    Seems a bit two faced.

    And here we have a kebeker (my turn to name call – just because it feels good) – who “writes about Quebec” – one of the biggest welfare provinces in Canada – telling Canadians the “The angry, radical right” are the problem?

    I think not.

    (Now I fully expect to be called down by those who would be the “polite left, socialist left” – Canada must be full of them as the only other apparent option is the “The angry, radical right”. Let’s see just how polite they are when presented with a different option other than one from a state funded media outlet.)

    • “even I – a person who once could have been considered an “The angry, radical right””

      Once?

    • You are saying that death threats against a democratically elected official are fine?

      It’s perfectly fine to be right wing (I lean that direction myself). It’s perfectly fine (if a little unhealthy) to be angry. It’s even fine to have a rational opposition to immigration/refugees.

      But read the comments below any article about immigration, Trudeau or cycling (another anger-fodder topic) and try to believe there is no angry, radical right.

    • Is it better that Harper sold Canada to Communist China with his sneak FIPPA deal? Harper signed the papers as of, Oct 1/2014. Most Canadians detest communism and don’t want Communist China on our Canadian soil, what-so-ever. I have no idea as to why Harper and his so called Conservatives aren’t in prison as traitors doing acts of treason.

      • Have you checked with your buddy trudeau. He wants to trade with China and said it was one government he admires and now he is in power.

        • Well said. Have you ever seen a violent protest by Christians or Righty’s? Every single violent protest, from the G20 on down is by Lefty’s. And they’re ignorant to-boot!

    • Ticked Off Canuck offers ideas and rhetoric then sums them up succinctly: “I think not.”

    • >> “Perhaps the “angry, radical right” are realists and not “The angry, radical right”.
      No, the original statement is correct. There is also no shortage of equally small-minded people on the angry radical left. No one remains in the calm centre but me. It gets lonely and scary sometimes.

      >> “You can find this information if you do your due diligence – bet no one does”
      Did you? Perhaps you could share the details instead of just flinging accusations.

  4. Canadians will have to put up with the angry extremists for a few more years. The vast majority are old and don’t understand Canada’s youth and the country they believe we should be. This anger is also apparent in the battle for pipelines. In particular Albertans don’t understand that people living in the lower mainland don’t want the kinder morgan expansion to move forward. All the city councils here have already voted against this project. If the Liberals are looking for social licence they won’t find it here. .

    • Probably more than just a few more years. The Boomers are entering their cranky phase (the two quoted in the article were 65 and 67, putting them firmly in that demographic), so we have several years ahead of *that* dominating everything.

      • The Left are 100% psychology. This piece is a preemptive strike. Accuse the right of being “radical” in order to silence them going forward. Sorry, that stupid psychology doesn’t work on me!!

        I’m angry, and have damned good reason to be!! (see how easy it is to circumvent once you understand it?)

        Two different scientists independently stumbled onto the fact that Lefty’s use a different part of the brain than the rest of us. In short, they’re psychotic. And psychos engage in head-games (psychology). As noted above, that’s what this article really is!

        For Martin and all his fellow Lefty’s to ignore what’s going on across the globe and pretend there’s nothing to be concerned about, is clearly psychotic!! You have to have some pretty serious psychological problems to stick your head that far in the sand. If his own wife or daughter were gang-raped he’d still be making excuses. If I were his wife, I’d divorce him quick like a bunny for my own safety!

        I’d like to thank Martin for putting his psychiatric problems on display for all to see!

    • It just so happens that people with a lot of experience are considerably smarter than your typical lefty. That’s why there are very few old leftists. The didn’t die young, they just got smart.

    • Kinder Morgan will go forward. You cranky old leftists are going to have to learn that you don’t always get your way… and leading young people on to look as daft as you, doesn’t help. Helps popcorn sales, though.

  5. One need look no further than comment pages on any Canadian news site over the last ten years to see any conceivable manner of hate speech against Harper and his government…from comparisons to Hitler to declarations of how much the PM hates Canada to assurances of how he intends to destroy our very existence.

    Radical anything is bad, but the ‘radical realm’ is everything but exclusive to the right.

    And I challenge anyone to tell me who in the entire history of Canadian politics has been the victim of more online hatred than the political right and specifically Stephen Harper.

    The left is every bit as angry, insulting and hateful as anyone.

    • More people got connected to the internet in the past decade than had been in the previous decade which is why Harper was the recipient of online rage more than any other Prime Minister – timing is everything.
      When the best excuse that can be offered for criminal behaviour is equivalency – “he does it, so I should do it, too” – you have no argument at all.

    • Stephen Harper wasn’t criticized because he was right-leaning. He was criticized because he was secretive, anti-democratic, mean-spirited and petty. Unless you feel that those qualities are inherently right wing, I think you are way off base. Plenty of right-leaning voters refused to support him. He was an odious man, and his political affiliation was not the main reason he was despised.

      • I totally agree with you. Harper lied and cheated to win his elections. Harper sold us out to Communist China. Gave our Canadian resources and resource to China as well. Harper’s sneak deal with China was so secret, he met China in Russia to plot his evil deed. Harper belongs in prison for his treachery.

      • Very well put & to the point. I’ll add just one thing. “Cowardly”. I expect everyone was terrified when the shooting incident occurred on parliament hill but only one left his fellow parliamentarian’s & went & hid while they tried to prepare for whatever may be coming.

        • Oh that stupid nonsense! Still? Is that all you can come up with? The security forces forced him into a safe-room (whether he liked it or not) and you have to play it up?

    • I was living abroad when Harper was first elected, so didn’t pay much attention to Canadian news then. Was he vilified as much as Trudeau has been so soon after the election?

      I know he gained a lot of hatred towards the end of his mandate, but a lot of it was for things that he did rather than what people thought he would do.

      • There were was a lot of partisan nonsense directed at Harper throughout his mandate. I was very much opposed to many of his government’s actions (although I do approve of some things his government did – anyone who isn’t a rabid partisan or ideologue should be able to do that about any government), but throwing around labels like “fascist” is stupid. And the “closet” comments after the Parliament Hill attack were just juvenile.

        However, I don’t remember death threats. As the article says, “…right-wing extremists tend to be the most explicit and reckless of those who make these kinds of threats,” says a former member of the RCMP’s threat-assessment group…” I wouldn’t call the Mounties a hotbed of Trudeau liberalism, and the assorted terrorist acts (Oklahoma City) and flareups (Oregon standoff) in the US tend to involve right-wingers, so that seems like a plausible assessment. Hence the article.

    • Left has been angry and insulting and hateful of that there is not denying. But the left for the most part has never shouted kill ” Harper and or all of his right wing minions”

      • “Secretive, anti-democratic, mean-spirited and petty”? Now that’s hatred! It’s a bit disgusting how the left thinks that putting a detailed tag on their hate makes it somehow less hateful. Particularly enjoy the “mean spirited” part, though. There are none more mean spirited than the left, as ten years of barking at Harper, and more recently, howls of blood lust at Trump, with more than a few young dips calling for his assassination. The left are no better than any other political group – just far less self-aware.

    • there hasn’t been a PM as unpopular as Harper in the internet era. But you might look back at some of the things said about Pierre Trudeau or Brian Mulroney

  6. One of the ironies, of course, is that by changing the electoral system Trudeau will give any radical group, left, right or just crazy, the opportunity to elect an MP who can rant unchecked on the floor of the House of Commons. As Brian Jean shows, leaders of our broad-based parties can play a role in countering the most angry of the angry (you don’t have to be ‘angry’ to realize Trudeau is a flake who is hurting Canada daily, and will need replacement at the next election if Liberals don’t toss him first). BUT when proportional representation or preferential ballots are used, even the sliver-thin parties gain legitimacy. It wouldn’t be a surprise that we would soon have 200+ political parties, with 30 or more able to elect MPs with a wacko new system.

    • I’m not a fan of proportional representation (I prefer the ranked ballot or STV), but in fairness, reasonable PR systems have a percentage threshold that a party has to attain in order to be awarded seats. This prevents a Parliament where there are numerous fringe parties.

    • And the preferential (ranked) ballot would prevent fringe parties from being elected as is the case now. In fact, preferential ballots would make it more difficult than now as it would not be possible for a fringe party candidate to win via vote splitting.

  7. Radical Right?

    Don’t you mean the private sector, the ones that depend on the economy and produce, only to be robbed by Canada’s Robin Hood Prime Minister and his band of public sector and union drones.

  8. Martin, you could ask Sophie Gregoire Trudeau to sing a spiritual lullaby to all the angry right wingers.

    That should turn them full dhimmi like you…for sure…

    You could call them on your cel phone, late night when you need their love….

  9. We’re angry on the right for a reason, Marty. We’re angry because the lazy, intellectually dishonest media has helped to create a mass of poorly informed voters who have been fed a steady diet of journalism dedicated to narrowing our electoral choices down to “more government’ or “even more government”, all while never taking the time to question their own hardcore belief in the unerring power of the state, as long as that state is a progressive one.
    I’ll give you one glaring example, Patriquin, of how an almost universally “progressive” media (You guys are all over diversity, as long as it conforms to a very narrow and uniform type of diversity.) has helped to foster the anger on the right.
    Take Justin Trudeau. Please. From the day he eulogized his very unlamented father, the hordes of the Canadian media engaged in a long, drawn out push to re-unite Justin with his boyhood home. From a decade ago onward, it was apparent that Justin Trudeau would one day become the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, or the media would die trying. It was a fait accompli before Stephen Harper became PM.
    Yet- AND YET- at no time did anyone in what is a sad excuse for a media take a measure of the man. Not once, not one single time, has any writer of substance from Maclean’s or the G&M or the Toronto Star sat down and introspectively asked the hard questions. Never once did you ask why it is that this “bright and ambitious” young man has steadfastly avoided any challenges in his life? Why has he steadfastly avoided obligation, or risk, or even responsibility for that matter, beyond the most basic? This is not the mark of a leader. This is the mark of a slacker, a layabout. It speaks volumes about even his intelligence, or lack thereof. (And mark my words, le dauphin’s lack of intellect will become ever more glaringly obvious with each passing month.)
    This nation has no shortage of young men who were born to equal or greater wealth than Trudeau, who could have coasted far more easily on the coattails of their fathers, but instead have chosen to step out and take risks and responsibilities and truly lead. Many have chosen the burden of expanding the businesses of their forebears. They chose to be tested.
    For his entire adult life, Trudeau has chosen NOT to be tested. Instead, he chose to ride completely and utterly on the coattails of his father, with a compliant media and a mendacious Liberal Party paving the road ahead. Like many, he knew it was only a matter of time before a confluence of forces created the perfect storm. It required an old guard of Liberals and liberals, fraught with a nostalgic yearning for the glory days of the first, and charismatic, Trudeau. It required a media still largely ruled by journalism school grads who had been taught by their profs to “question everything”, albeit with a nod towards only questioning that which reeked of conservatism. And guess what? It worked.
    You have created your own perilous existence, however. You and most of your fellow scribblers have rarely sat down and asked yourself “What was the cost of the glory of the earlier Trudeau?”, while working diligently to foist another upon the Canadian public.
    What has been the social costs of Trudeau socialism? Big government as envisioned by PET brought big taxes, and almost single-handedly destroyed the ability of Canadians to save their own money. I alone have paid an additional $100K in additional taxes just on the legacy of the first Trudeau, in 38 years of largely blue collar employment. Spread that over millions of Canadians and you see what we have lost, collectively. And lost we have, because there has been no tangible or intangible upside to the cost of Trudeau 1, only a collective loss of liberty. And that little tidbit only scratches the surface of the lasting and largely negative legacy of the first Trudeau, whose glory years your community has sought to recapture.
    That’s why we’re angry, Marty. That’s why we don’t pay actual money out of pocket for your magazine (I used to subscribe, years ago.) That’s why we are tuning out many of the voices of journalism. It’s because far too many of you are simply the voices of the left. We see no need to hear why we need more government this, and more government that. It hasn’t worked in the past, so why would we pay you to hear you keep saying it?
    Your audience is speaking back to you, Marty. The question you need to ask yourself is “Am I listening?”

    • Your long rant is a perfect example of confirmational bias at work.

    • Good comments. I also have just cancelled the toronto star after many years because its just to much rah, rah liberal supported by actual lies. Even now, hardly a day goes by without some reference to that villian Harper. All he brought us was lower taxes, lower GST, pension income splitting, richest middle class in the world (2015) and a balanced budget last year. His selfie skills were definately lacking though.

    • This isn’t about your normal run-of-the-mill anger, Bill. It’s about death threats. Any thoughts on that?

      • What’s the difference between listening to a bunch of lefties fantasizing about some kind of ugly death for Harper, and those who have wished a nasty demise for Notley and Trudeau? None. Log on to Kathy Shaidle’s site for a week, or Small Dead Animals, and you’ll be led to no shortage of links to some comment section or another whereby some unhinged lefty is openly discussing their death fantasy for Harper or O’Leary or Trump. It’ll be under the heading “The Tolerant Left”.
        There is one difference, however, that is vital. The right is angry at the left’s continued and unabated appetite for the confiscation of that which does not belong to them. The left wants my property, my free speech, my freedom of choice (except of course my freedom to make choices limited to what they have already chosen for me to choose), and of course my money. The left takes, but it never gives, unless of course everyone else can be obligated to give as well.
        When it boils right down to it, the right is not as much angry as it has simply chosen to simply push back. The left, having grown used to having the untrammeled power of the state at its beck and call, is suddenly querulous at the prospect of an emboldened citizenry that is prepared to stand up to the forces of statism. The left has never shied from hiding behind the ultimate violence of the state, but are suddenly driven to panic by the thought that some of the citizenry are willing to call the left’s bluff.
        So, really, my question back to you is why do some feel more endangered by the right, who basically get angry at having things that belong to them unjustly taken away, when the left gets angry at those who resist the left’s confiscatory desires? Seems to me you’re afraid of the wrong guys.

          • Actually, that was poorly worded. Are death threats ever OK or justified?

          • Are death threats justified? No. Buuut…
            Let me explain things a little more succinctly. The left is always nattering on about all the things government needs TO DO. Look at global warming, one of the left’s great hobby horses.
            We’re told, on an hourly basis, that it’s the greatest crisis of our time. Existential, in fact. We face an existential threat that has not killed, maimed, or otherwise injured anyone.
            But hey, the left tells us, with enough resources given over to the unfettered authority of the state, well by gum we’ll stop that bogey man in his tracks!
            Right. Where’s Allan Funt? I’m asked to believe that an entity that couldn’t be trusted to reliably deliver the mail, or get the potholes filled, or even just get the streets reliably cleared of snow, should be given over enough resources to combat global motherf—–‘ warming?
            But we’ll do it via the UN! Right. Cue the Cosby gag again. You want to tell me that the same U f—–‘ N that appoints Robert motherf—–‘ Mugabe to a UN human rights advisory board should be granted almost unlimited economic and legal authority over me in order to battle a threat that is so far unseen, unfelt, unheard, and essentially unknown.
            How much motherf—–‘ crack are you on!?
            At some point, after decades of being spoon fed a diet of comparably mindless leftist pap, it becomes an act of Zen-like self control to NOT wish for a healthy dose of good ol’ fashioned expedited Darwinism for whomever occupies the left-wing soap box of the day.
            Again, we think some of you (and I’m not picking on you personally, ’cause I don’t actually know your politics) maybe ought to suffer a little violence simply because you rely far too much on the ultimate violence of the state to achieve your political goals.
            Fair ’nuff?

          • Sadly Bill, we must disagree again. Death threats aren’t OK, never justified. Not “no buuut,” just no. It’s wrong when someone threatens Kathy on SDA, it’s wrong when someone threatens Trudeau. Just wrong. Period.

          • Actually, Tim,

            some death threats are justified. If someone is trying to break into my house, I will clearly let him know that if he crosses the threshold, there is a good chance he will die. if he leaves now, he will live.

            Leave the choice to live or die to the bad guy, but leave the option of defending my family from the bad guy up to me.

      • Death threats.

        Only death threats I’ve seen are by Islamists, and involve America, Israel, and Europe.
        Which may be why people are getting upset at the usual suspects on the left pretending Islam isn’t the problem.

    • Bill, was Justin Trudeau influencing how the Progressive Conservative Party ran Alberta? All the problems in Alberta have come as result of unfettered growth being allowed by previous provincial Conservative governments that were supported by a federal Conservative government for the past 10 year with policies that help that unfettered growth. Don’t blame JT for the dumb ideas of provincial government either from the left or right. We have to wait until they come out with at least one budget. Also reason Alberta got screwed was because of Saudi Arabia and all the other OPEC nations.

    • You’ve taken a lot of words, Mr. Greenwood, to promote a falsehood. Most of the media in Canada are owned by one right-wing company and the CBC is controlled by a board appointed entirely by Stephen Harper. You people always try to sound like victims, so that you can then be “angry” about how hard done by you are, and it seems that you are everywhere.

      • It’s not a falsehood that the media is lazy and incurious. Only a lazy and incurious media would give us a situation where the “robocalls” were a cause celebre, yet a 200% voter turnout on an Indian reserve isn’t. Only a lazy and incurious media would fail to have escalated to front page news a headline on the APTN website about a corrupt loan scheme that involves the president of the Manitoba NDP. Only a lazy and incurious media would fail to look closely at a provincial NDP cabinet m,ember who recently advocated for public sector workers to be eligible for paid bereavement leave upon the death of an imaginary friend. Any a–hole can re-hash a motherf—–n’ press release, which is what about 95% of what passes for reporting is nowadays.
        But, all this still fails to address the profound lack of intellect that apparently makes it hard for some to understand why it is that some of us are driven to anger by being frog marched into the embrace of a quasi-socialist state, enslaved by regulators and their passions, instead of simply being allowed to live as free people.
        The left has an unyielding lust for authority, that it couches in nice sounding phrases such as “progressive”, where confiscation is rebranded as “transfers” and “investments”, and end runs around essential liberties are called “regulations”.
        It’s all made out to sound so nicey-nice, yet it ignores the hard reality of the hand of the state. The left hates the idea of voluntary change, of charity versus taxation, of choice versus regulatory forced compliance. It hates it because the left does not want choices that it disagrees with. The left will always choose a path that leaves the citizen no choice but to comply, or face the prospect of armed agents of the Crown appearing at ones door to deprive one of liberty. What the f— is there not to get angry about?
        Why the f— would we not get angry when the left consistently chooses paths to economic and social suicide, all while insisting that everyone else by the motherf—kin’ ammo?
        (I’m looking at you, opponents of the Energy East pipeline.)

        • There’s a lot of mind reading in your post about what “the left” thinks, likes, hates and lusts for, but you’ve given us no evidence. First you’re angry about what Canada’s right wing press does; then, when you’re reminded that the press is right wing, you’re angry about what “the left” thinks. Again… you’ve given us lots of words but very little info.

          • The left thinks we need to comply with it’s anti-climate change agenda, or face the wrath of the state.
            The left demands that we accept the redefinition of marriage, or face the wrath of the state.
            The left thinks we should accept more state control and regulation of speech, or face the wrath of the state.
            The left thinks many of us should pay more taxes, or face the wrath of the state.
            Need I go on?
            There is no hobby horse of the left that does not involve an infringement upon my liberty, with no tangible or intangible benefit to me or them, except for the fact that it makes them FEEL BETTER. My response is, Eat manure and die. Your fears of the consequences of lack of regulation or government oversight do not trump my right to liberty.
            We oppose you, and are angered by you, because you’re never satisfied. 45 years ago, we collectively decided to reduce the impact of drunk driving, and reduced it by half in 25 years. It has flatlined since the 90s. What’s been the response? A doubling down of impositions that are strictly meant to give the regulators a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Well, eat a motherf—-in’ hot cinammon bun. Same result.
            Same with cigarettes. We cut the number of smokers in half. I call that a victory. What’s the statist response? Double down again. We’ve been doubling down on anti-smoking efforts for better than 20 years, with no apparent impact. Enough already! We’ll ignore the absurdity of the fact that the most virulently anti-tobacco activists are the same people advocating for the legalization of marijuana, along with the right to smoke it in public. For now.
            The left thinks some foods are unhealthy, and should be regulated because that unhealthiness increases the costs of state provided health care. In simpler terms, the nanny state exists, and we need to expand the size and scope of the nanny state in order to protect the nanny state. No. Eat some 2-4D, instead. It’s healthier for me, that’s for sure.
            It goes on and on and on. Show me a regulation, and I’ll show you one that probably doesn’t actually accomplish crap. Show me a regulation that doesn’t accomplish crap, and I’ll show you a plethora of left-leaning activists crying out for ever more stringent regulations. Show me a regulation that simply makes it harder to start and run a small business, and I’ll show you a busload of lefties crying out for more regulations that make it harder to start and run a small business, along with a second busload crying out for more taxes upon those businesses.
            The full blown, dyed in the wool, double digit, hard core stupidity that the left feels it needs to impose upon everyone else eventually has an impact. It’s called push back.
            Get used to it.

          • Nancy,

            If you don’t understand what Bill Greenwood is referring too, then frankly you are too damned stupid to be engaged in this debate.

            Everything Bill has just told you has occurred. it isn’t Bills fault you are not, nor his duty to ensure you are informed.

      • Nancy,

        Clearly you don’t know bias when you see it. YOu are like a fish….you are surrounded by water, and yet don’t realize you are wet because that is how life has always been in your world.

        here’s a hint…it doesn’t matter who appointed anyone, or who owns the company….what matters, is the CONTENT of the material being produced as news or journalism. In Canada, that content is almost exclusively left wing; and hence, almost always wrong or biased on some level.

  10. Interesting but not suprising difference between Canada and the US. Some angry ranters, while still trying to excuse or justify their behavior, still feel a little bit guilty with using violent rhetoric and Tea Party type politicians condemn it. That is a rare occurrence south of the border where far right pols continue to feed the fire.

  11. Wonderful article sheading light on some of the darkest corridors of our citizens. Needed tio be said.

  12. Two important points came out of this article. There are extreme partisans in politics. Some people are racist. Those extreme partisans do not represent the average citizen who votes right or left. The second important point is there are politicians that are not fanning the flames and are telling the extreme partians that the behavior is unacceptable. Brian Jean of the Wildrose is one such politician. The RCMP is monitoring the internet. Thankfully. It is okay to be frustrated but uttering threats is a crime. So is slander and libel. What I find really interesting is that the ones threatening Trudeau don’t reside in the west. Also, I am always pleased at the intelligence and common sense shown by Nenshi. When people under stress, they say stupid things. Journalists like Levant and Ann Coulter make a living stirring the pot and so do some Liberal journalists.

    • @Bill Greenwood, Very, Very Good…Oh ya all those clutching their pearls about “Death Threats” go to Huff Post or Rabble for these…………

      • Also @Ticked Off Canuck Very, Very Good…….

    • You mentioned Levant and Coulter for the right but who for the Left?

      • Rachel Maddow. Paula Simmons at the Edmonton Journal just wrote a ridiculously inaccurate opinion piece on the closing of the psychiatric hospital AHE to direct admit patients. Aaron Wherry at Macleans never wrote a negative word about JT.

        • I think Aaron has a crush on Justin. I expect he’s looking for a personal interview (or job offer) somewhere down the line.

  13. The Reform Party , Preston Manning and Stephen Harper have a long history with these kinds of people. Ezra Levant was very close to the Harper gang especially Jenni Byrne. Sun News was run by Harper’s people and Ezra was their top spokesman.

    These are the people Harper knows very well and who he pandered too with all his quasi racist words and actions. His loyalists in the party-which is most of the party-are part of this also.

    The have taken over most of the message boards-the CBC ,the Globe and the Post. It is all just one shout of ugliness,hatred , ignorance and bigotry now.

    • Kelper….you just accused most of the conservative party members of being guilty of taking over message boards at online media outlets and filling them with “ugliness, hatred, ignorance and bigotry.” The truth is that those spewing this crap are a very small number of people. It is hardly the whole membership of the conservative party. Do you really believe that entire provinces are bigoted because they tend to vote federally in a certain way? Most of Calgary voted in conservative MP’s and yet Calgary has a Muslim mayor, the only one in the country. Is Calgary which likely has a large number of federal conservative party members full of ugliness, hatred, ignorance and bigotry? Wasn’t Calgary a city where one businessman offered up 500 apartments at greatly reduced prices for Syrian refugees? Did pepper spraying occur in Calgary? No. It occurred in Vancouver, a city that voted almost exclusively left in the federal election. It is very wrong-headed and dangerous to look at the actions of a few and decide they can be generalized to the many. You may not realize this but Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are very good friends yet they are polar opposites when they take the political stage. Why? Because for them politics is an interesting game of sorts. It is how they make a living but they don’t really take it too seriously. People vent and say all kinds of provocative things to shock and titillate but few pick up a gun. It is wrong because there are people out there with mental health issues who don’t know that politics is a game.

  14. What a piece of left propaganda. I submitted numerous examples of profound online abuse and death threats I received for having rather moderate views that hardly can be characterized as far right. I am an immigrant myself and support sensible immigration.

    No media were interested in my or others stories showing abuse and death threats from the left wing supporters.

    It is this kind of biased reporting that divides this society and jeopardizes the very values of the freedom of speech and the freedom of association that are at the core of Canada.

    I wonder what drives these pseudo-journalists and magazines?

    • To whom and where? What articles? Most of the time I read post with regards to violence, it comes from a right wing poster.

      • You appear to relate being nice with being politically left. Apparently you have never read any posts by Emilyone.

  15. Mr. Witko does NOT belong in Texas; I regret that we have enough sad, unhappy men like him already, thank you. But please avoid stereotypes, which are no more accurate or useful than Mr. Witko’s babblings.

  16. The right wingers who feel like Mr Witko and sites like Never Again Canada came about because of Fox News and American websites. Canada has always been just a bit behind the times when it comes to the new media. Rebel Media is trying to capitalize on those feelings.

  17. One only has to go for a few minutes to see mutliple examples of comments from the hard right.
    It is, quite frankly, bizarre to see such extreme comments. One thinks these are the same people who populate the ranks of the extreme right-wing Tea Party in the US.
    Yes, there is partisanship in politics. But the more level-headed Canadians among us, do recognize that, no matter who is leading our country, the PM is doing some good things.
    I didn’t especially like Harper, but I did agree with some of his decisions.
    How can people — both hard right and hard left, by the way ! — live in such a ‘black-and-white’, ‘you’re with us or against us’ world ?
    There are people obsessed with a few issues: muslims and hatred for Trudeau in this case.
    Hatred never leads to anything good.

  18. A very radical, extreme left wing magazine like Macleans that openly supports Canada’s left is telling us about the nasty “angry”, “radical” right? And this is supposed to have some objectivity and credibility?

    • Macleans is an extreme left wing magazine? When I read statements like that, I’m reminded of the US Teapartyists and begin to fear that their insanity is drifting northward.

      • Both statements are hyperbole in the extreme. Macleans is not an extreme left wing magazine and the US teapartyists are not drifting northward. Truth be known, the conservatives in Canada are much closer to the Democrats in the US than the Republicans. Despite all of the scare mongering, the conservatives never got rid of abortion, gay marriage or universal healthcare. This new liberal government is actually keeping some of the conservative policies because they did some things that the liberal party agreed with. Notley in Alberta is now negotiating with BC for a pipeline. BC wants a cut of the money and cleanup insurance. Notley is cutting back civil service jobs. She has to. She called Obama her competition in the oil business. Perhaps more Canadians will see that the left and right aren’t that far apart in many aspects.

  19. Well, disagreeing with a political ideology isn’t immoral, and no amount of name calling and fear mongering will change the fact that many people are angry and upset.

    Being called “right wing” is the new insult to silence opposition to Gov’t policy. How very democratic of you all.

    But in the end, I don’t care what anyone thinks. I have the right to be as angry as I want, and I have the right (no pun intended) to dissent with the Ministry of Truth and it’s mouth breathing zombies till the cows come home.

    Too bad I too have a vote. As does my family and friends. And we’re not going away.

    • Pierre,

      yes, we right-wingers have the vote, but the “progressives” own the universities, the courts and much of the beaurocracy.

      Why do you think the Surpreme Court had to twist itself in knots to change/elimiiate the former governments legislation? In fact, the Surpreme court of today, had to ditch what the Supreme court of 15 or 20 years ago already ruled upon.

      The biggest mistake this country has ever done, was give power to the courts to overturn legislation by parliament. time to start using the notwithstanding clause to show these lawyers that they are only a cog in the machine, they are not the engine.

  20. Must be an old story, or a repost, you can not get a Firearms Acquisition Certificate in Canada, haven`t been able to for years. The new license is called PAL (possession and acquisition license).

    • Don’t sweat it Doug,

      I’m sure that last line by Martin….was as “made up” as was most of his article.

      In fact, this article by martin is much like his other articles; as authentic as Justin Trudeau himself.

  21. Interesting article, however, on behalf of Pegida Canada, we are neither angry, nor radical, though some might say we are. We encourage knowledge and action, legal, peaceful action. Having said this, supporters post things in anger and frustration. We do our utmost to monitor these comments, but also understand that people are afraid, frustrated and upset. Rather than branding us all as right wing radicals, you would do better to understand why people are afraid, and why groups like Pegida Canada continue to grow.

  22. Yes, that is the problem with generalizations. People tend to take the actions of a very few and decide they are applicable to everyone who lives in a geographical area or votes a certain way. It is not only incorrect but disrespectful.

    • Gage G. wrote, “Yes, that is the problem with generalizations”

      ACtually, Gage G. That’s the problem with Canadian journalists………they already have a narrative they wish to impart on the nation……and then they just look for what they think will fit.

      as is his custom…marty has just been up to the same old same old. Can’t prove it….then make it up using whatever scraps you can dig up on the internet.

  23. I’ll give two glaring examples of how the left always doubles down on regulatory excess, with no discernible upside.
    Whenever we have a high-profile shooting in this country that involves an individual with specific legal impediment from possessing a firearm, you will never see that person prosecuted for the specific firearms offense. Never. Why is it that a state apparatus that routinely expends a great deal of finite resources to prosecute otherwise law-abiding citizens for the use of a firearm in legitimate home defense, abjectly refuses to prosecute firearms offenses separately from the robberies and homicides that they are often conjoined with? If the use of firearms while committing an offense is to be seen as an extra serious event, why not prosecute the offenses separately and extract consecutive sentencing, as opposed to always repeating the mantra of “gun control”?
    Supposedly, automotive emissions regulations are in place to reduce pollution and improve air quality. In the early 2000s, the US and Canadian governments proposed a new level of emissions standards. The engineers at Ford were ahead of the curve on this, and decided to challenge California’s intent to put the new emissions regime in place ahead of the rest of the country. Their homework had already shown that there was a downside to meeting the new standards (regulations). Aside from an increase in costs to the consumer, Ford was able to show that while cleaner for the first 200,000 miles of vehicle life, the accelerated degradation caused by the new regulations meant that for the remaining expected life of the vehicle, the actual emissions would be so much more severe as to more than offset the earlier benefits. In short, the new regulations caused more air pollution, not less.
    The response from the California Air Resources Board and the environmental lobby (one and the same) was to say “Gee, thanks Ford. Without your hard work we’d not have known that.” Not exactly. The stated and official response was that the Board could not be seen as being friendly to the automotive industry, and therefore the compromise offered by Ford, and endorsed by other manufacturers, was rejected outright. In direct spite of incontrovertible evidence of the beneficial impact of the proposed compromise. Have I mentioned the left’s undying insistence on doubling down in the face of failure?
    I’ll give you a bonus track. 2/3 of all so-called drunk driving fatalities involve drivers with a BAC greater than .16%. Half of those, in turn, have been charged with drinking and driving offenses in the past. The number of fatalities seen to have been a direct result of impaired driving at a BAC of below .08% is so low as to be statistically inconsequential. What has been the siren call of the regulatory left? If you guessed doubling down on the incidence of impaired driving below .08%, you’d be correct. You’d get a bonus point for adding that they have been doubly mendacious by avoiding the criminal code aspect, and simply making it a “regulation” for which there are severe and potentially life altering penalties, but for which there is no legal recourse or remedy.
    And you people wonder why we literally hate the fact that God provided you with the nerve tissue that your addled brains use to direct your diaphragm to contract, thus drawing air into your lungs.
    Oh, and have a nice day.:)

    • I sometimes wonder how long your ranting posts would be if you offered some actual evidence to back up your assertions.

      • Those are all valid, Gayle,

        What do you want? Should he print you off the PDF and mail it to you?

        We all know you simply wouldn’t read it anyway.

  24. You talk about racism, when you are a racist yourself Martin

    Educate yourself first – and stop spreading LIES

    Zionism is not a hate group, Zionism is not some nationalistic campaign. Zionism means the right of the jewish people to a home in theri ancentral land, exactly like native americans have a right to their lands.

    So stop regurgitating Arab colonialist propaganda that claims all regions and lands under their rule.

    Hey Anti-semite, the Gig is up! people are NOT as stupid as you think they are. We have connected the dots :

    Iraq – Arabs killing all NON arabs ( Shiites, Yazidis, Kurds )
    Syria – Arabs killing all NON arabs ( Shiites, Yazidis, Kurds )
    Lebanon – Arabs killing all NON arabs
    Pakistan / India – Arabs killing all NON arabs
    Philippines, Thailand – Muslims killing NON muslims
    Saudia Arabia / Iran – Sunnis vs Shiites
    Turkey / Kurds – Arabs killing all NON arabs
    Chechenia – Muslims killing NON muslims
    Nigeria – Arabs killing all NON arabs
    Sudan – Arabs killing all NON arabs
    Burkina Faso – Arabs killing all NON arabs
    Mali – Arabs killing all NON arabs

    And now Europe,

    So try and blame Israel as much as you like, while it lasts you

    THE GIG IS UP MARTIN, NOBODY BELIEVES YOUR CRAP ANYMORE

  25. Why are you angry and radical if you do not agree with the Prime Minister. The right is never just called the right, it is always the radical right, the angry right. Some people just have conservative (in a non political way) views.

    • Their was an angry and radical right when Harper was in power. To think the radical right’s anger is just something that happened in the last few months is to miss the last decade.

      The angry, radical right in Canada was obsessing over Obama before they had Trudeau to obsess over. And when Trudeau’s gone they’ll obsess over someone else.

  26. The Left are 100% psychology. This piece is a preemptive strike. Accuse the right of being “radical” in order to silence them going forward. Sorry, that stupid psychology doesn’t work on me!!

    I’m angry, and have damned good reason to be!! (see how easy it is to circumvent once you understand it?)

    Two different scientists independently stumbled onto the fact that Lefty’s use a different part of the brain than the rest of us. In short, they’re psychotic. And psychos engage in head-games (psychology). As noted above, that’s what this article really is!

    For Martin and all his fellow Lefty’s to ignore what’s going on across the globe and pretend there’s nothing to be concerned about, is clearly psychotic!! You have to have some pretty serious psychological problems to stick your head that far in the sand. If his own wife or daughter were gang-raped he’d still be making excuses. If I were his wife, I’d divorce him quick like a bunny for my own safety!

    I’d like to thank Martin for putting his psychiatric problems on display for all to see!

  27. I am sure the unbiased and honest reporting MacLeans will now do an article on the angry left. I am tired of reporters being free to say anything they want even when it is not true. Clean up your act MacLeans or just say you are a liberal paper and be done with it.

  28. Why did the official version of trudeau speech at Davos appear on the website of the Prime Minster changed from what he actually said. Did not look very good for the man so change it to hide from Canadians what he said. Just asking

  29. In the last 10 years who has tried to divide the country into east vs west, but the Conservatives under Harper. I have voted many times for the Progressive Conservatives ( I actually liked them to some degree) and even once for the Conservatives, but after seeing so much hate and divineness I could no longer do it, I would like to see a some what united Canada. I actually like a lot of what Preston Manning has to say. It was the Conservatives and Harper , that called out Atlantic Canada as a culture of defeat, the elitist of Ontario, those that decided to go to university and of course the people of Quebec. Say what you will about Trudeau and the Liberals , never once have I seen them attacking any part of Canada or its people , never have I seen them attack a religious group or anyone that has a different point of view. Trudeau and the Liberals, are trying to unite Canada as one country with a positive message and inclusiveness for everyone. For all the hard right wingers out there, if you think there is so many people in this country that have the same mentality as yourselves, why isn’t there a media form to take up your cause, oh I forgot Sun TV (Fox North) but not enough people were interested in their hard right wing point of view to keep them on the air. A lot of Canadians, like myself, take a centralist point of view, we swing right , we swing left, depending on the person and their parties point of view. But this hard right brand of Conservatism does not help your cause. The majority of Canadians want a optimistic , caring and united Canada, not an east against west Canada.

  30. To their own detriment, these individuals are abusing their freedom to business and enterprise, and their freedom to free speech. They are limiting the freedom of those who already have less freedom than them, those who for whatever reasons cannot be helped but be made helpless by their inflammatory actions, and be sucked into really doing something rebelliously murderous. They should mind their freedom to live responsibly, since they claim they have the capacity to be responsible individuals.

  31. It is all mass media’s fault. Many event’s are not reported, many views are shamed and people generally want to find the truth. Syrian refugees are not the problem, MASS IMMIGRATION is the problem. Mass immigration not paired up with mass job creation. While the rich, liberal elitists are not affected (yet) the working poor are. Wages are stagnant housing is going up and up and up and generally cost of living is too high for anyone not to feel threatened. Of course this doesn’t affect all the government workers and all the rich elitists. They are the ones who don’t mind the 260,000 immigrants Harper was bringing to Canada every year, they are the ones who think Trudeau is great for wanting to increase the number to 315,000 a year. The current mass immigration model is unsustainable yet any one speaking out agains mass
    immigration is dismissed as (just like in this article) a person who is anti immigration as such. We would need an honest debate in this country but of course the left would never allow it.

    • It is entirely possible that the rich elitists don’t really care whether the immigrants are being blamed for the neglect of the working poor. But without immigrants, where do you think the continued growth in the Canadian economy comes from? The low Canadian birthrate?

      • How about we bring in immigrants that will ASSIMILATE and Integrate in OUR culture..??

        What a concept eh.??

        • The concepts of assimilation, integration, and culture are at the heart of the needs and desires of the human condition. OUR culture is what WE want to build together, right now. Certainly, immigrants must come here in good faith; on the other hand, those who welcome them must also welcome them in good faith. This country’s memories of the current hosts for immigrants being immigrants themselves are much clearer, as there still exists prominent partitions between them and First Nations peoples.

  32. So basically: “I don’t REALLY want him dead so musing aloud about him being taken out or assassinated, or obliquely inferring that this should be done by outright saying that he should be stopped by ANY means possible, is OK” is the argument being made here.

    YIKES!!!

    • It’s not entirely surprising if one cannot transcend the limits of living in a climate-engineered personal space bubble.

  33. Manipulative regressive left like you vomitting their frustrations about being found out for the phony dangerous idiots they truly are..

    You’re mentally sick

  34. Your ARTICLE is a joke my friend. You use the word extremist often yet you NEVER speak about Muslim Extremism….talk about Hypocrisy. You read like someone ensconced in a stainless steel bubble for millennia that has just been allowed to peek a glimpse yet cannot not comprehend what he sees.

    Might want to take a good look at what has transpired in the UK, Eu and Scandinavia over the past 5 years – a harbinger of what is to come to this country should we continue in our importation of a culture that simply will NOT assimilate nor integrate into Western society and as such will cause the identical issues that now plague Europe or should I say “Eurabia”.

    You would do well to research the ideological umbrella organization of every Islamic terror group on the planet: the Muslim Brotherhood. And how they have infiltrated North America since the early 1950’s into every aspect of our society: Academia, Media, Politics and as such pushed continuously while ever so slightly in an effort to destabilize our Culture. Read about Hassan al Banna, the originator of the MB back in 1928 in Egypt, who’s life long desire was complete world domination by Islam and the creation of a worldwide caliphate.

    Because your article my friend, stinks of zero knowledge of what you speak but reeks
    of your left wing marxist bent. An ill informed bit of propaganda.

  35. Why is everyone so polarized on the issue. It doesn’t have to be so black and white. Everyone on either side just does the opposite of the other.The fact is that there are fundamental issues, more so than any other religion, that need to be addressed…..it’s not racist to question an ideology that has statistically caused more problems and holds violent ideals **in the current era** than any other ideology. Look at the PEW polls. Not trying to start an argument or anything, just wanted to question why everyone is so polarized and can’t find a middle ground where we actually question a faith that promotes violence without saying every single person who follows it is bad. On top of the fact that the regressive left criticizes Christianity and not Islam, there are serious differences between the two ideologies. Everyone just replies with, “you should read the Old Testament,” which is just simply ignorance. There are key differences between the faith such as prophets (Mohammed was a rapist and warlord, while Jesus was quite contrary to him and the Old Testament), the coming along of the New Testament and Jesus, etc. I’m not even religious, I can’t stand all religion, but I can look at things with an open mind and take it for what it really is. Why should we let a religion tell people it’s good to kill non-believers, oppress women, and kill those who leave the religion. Then people just post stupid memes about all the terror attacks in the US by people who happened to be Christian. The key difference was they didn’t do it because their religion told them to. Islam is pretty unambiguous in it’s scripture, in regards to violence. It’s silly to just shut down the conversation and assume everyones racist just like trump. I can’t even associate with left anymore because the regressive left have made it so embarrassing. Both sides need to grow up.

      • Venturing a guess, both of your dislike of religion may stem from the wolves who use it as a political instrument but disguise themselves as sheep.

        The founder of Pakistan seemed to have caught on in his inaugural address: “You will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

        The Muslims may have been more vulnerable to political predatory attacks more than other religions because of being on the wrong side of oppression more than the other religions.

  36. Glad to see MacLeans calling them what they are, they scare me, not for myself, but for the future of my grandkids. I have even stopped contact with family who admit to voting for conservatives because it is our duty as Canadians to cherish the values of love and diversity, not perpetuate greed and hate.

    • You need to go volunteer with ISIS they like stupid people.

  37. Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, the first Muslim mayorof Calgary Turned deaf dumb and blind all in one day 2 summers ago when a mob of around 80 hateful muslims chanted kill the Jews and attacked a Jewish family with 3 children brutally and viciously. Nenshe never said a thing. He refused to comment. I can see why as a Muslim he sticks to his own. You think Jewish people who want to protect themselves are evil instigators against innocent muslims. Wake up it’s getting to the point where we don’t give a damn. There is right and wrong. Call me a racist. I am a racist especially when it boils down to muslims screatching KILL the Jews. You’re french and that’s your reason for ignorance but this is not Nazi Germany and we aren’t cowering onto cattle cars. We are extremely prepared to defend ourselves. Hope you are to!

  38. To say that I am completely outraged by this most divisive and ugly article is an acute understatement. This cheap shot at the Conservative voice in this country marks an unprecedented low in journalism. Do Conservatives — 32 percent of voting Canadians — deserve to be branded as dangerous fringe members of society by Maclean’s magazine?

    There is also the matter of the malicious and cowardly act of singling out two hapless, unsuspecting private citizens—one, a pensioner on disability– for a public shaming. This is a line that even cheap tabloids do not cross. Are you proud of destroying the reputations of private citizens through sensationalistic journalism just to sell a few magazines? Shame on you!

    It’s interesting that Mr. Patriquin did not include the name of an RCMP officer to corroborate his allegation. Instead, he singled out the two private citizens and named them without their consent. It may be lawful, but it certainly is not ethical. As if Conservatives weren’t enough of a target, Mr. Patriquin tosses in Zionists, the military, Christian militants, and the “occasional white nationalist” for good measure. What contempt Mr. Patriquin expresses for these diverse groups of Canadians!

    In this brand of journalism, Conservatives are labelled as “radical right wing extremists.” A “radical right wing extremist” is equated with Fascism and Authoritarianism. Fascists believe in a strong central authority without opposition (no voting, only one party). They believe that violence should be used to support authority. They also believe that there is one identity for a country–either you support and mirror that identity or you are not a part of the country.

    Mr. Patriquin’s use of words like “extreme” in the title, right away, implies that “the Right” (Conservatives) encourages violence against mainstream society. “Radical” implies a group that wants to bring about a major change and has behaviours that lean towards extremism and terrorism. However, nowhere in this article does he cite–beyond some cherry-picked online rants and a few alleged threats on politicians – a credible source to support his assertion. Is this acceptable journalism for a nationally respected magazine?

    Yet, Mr. Patriquin has no qualms about attacking the ethics and slants of Mr. Ezra Levant (Co-founder of The Rebel.media).

    What would possess someone to think this up, let alone write this ugliness for the world to read?
    How is such an article supposed to unite Canadians and treat them with the dignity they deserve?
    Is there no provision any more for diversity of thought or freedom of expression?
    As Canadians, we need to be able to approach difficult subjects with compassion, understanding and respect, and we should have the freedom to honestly debate issues without judgement or fear.

    The press needs to behave with integrity and not marginalize a segment of the population whose views they disagree with.

    I respectfully ask that the article be recanted and a public apology be issued. A great many Canadians find this article deeply offensive. I hope that before publishing such rubbish, your staff at Maclean’s will not only act more responsibly, but also reflect on the impact your publication has on ordinary people.

    • “Upon my word, E _ _ a, to hear you abusing the reason you have, is almost enough to make me think so too. Better be without sense, than misapply it as you do.”

      A highly recommended classic, titled “E _ _ a”.

      No, it’s not Ezra.

  39. Why is it, if you happen to lean conservative, you are called the “angry, radical right”. The right is never just called the right, it is always, the far right, the angry right, the radical right. Chill out. Sometimes conservatism is just that – people who tend to live conservatively.

    • After having read the article, your reply unwittingly suggests that you think that everyone who leans conservative routinely threatens murder.

      However, there is yet a glimmer of hope for Real Conservatives in Canada as indicated here in Brian Jean.

      The angry radical right presently looks like an irresponsible first-born/big brother throwing tantrums at the prodigal younger brother. Please grow up, and take up your right to be the Real Right.

Sign in to comment.