No mere question of taste -

No mere question of taste

Political pieing is meant to humiliate rather than convince


I’m appalled that Gerry Byrne would consider invoking terror law to squash one of those practitioners of the sandbox-anarchist “political pieing” fad. But the man does have a point. Pieing is a form of “political activity” meant to achieve its aim, not through reason, but by means of coercion. It is meant to humiliate rather than convince, and to warn other politicians that they too may be humiliated. In other words, it’s a deliberate, if puerile, attempt to manipulate the political process by spreading fear.

And it’s not a wholly trivial fear, either. It has never occurred to the phony radical wankers who fling pies (or to those who dismiss them as cute pranksters) that a pie tin could conceivably contain poison or acid. But eventually some more earnest kook will figure it out, with the help of many dry runs by useful idiots. And when that day comes, the joke really will be over. This is a possibility that security officials and politicians already have to train for and rehearse mentally. I do hate it when people in public life put on airs about their personal sacrifices, but no one should dismiss the perceived danger of being in such a position until they’ve spent a week reading a politician’s mail, or a judge’s, or a celebrity’s. Vicarious sangfroid comes easily to the anonymous.

A pieing is not an argument; it is, indisputably, an assault with intent to intimidate. In this sense, it is obviously correct to describe pieing as a minor species of terrorism. From the standpoint of the relevant principle—i.e., the distinction between debate and violence—hitting a legislator with a pie is no different than beating one with a sack of doorknobs. Indeed, a lot of legislators would probably choose to be confronted with a species of assault that gave them a fair chance to fight back. A pieing doesn’t; it just makes a mess.

Which is why leftist Edible Ballot-type dorks like it. It’s a “statement” that allows for no answer—a pure display of the power to assert, along the lines of a tantrum from a toddler or a drunkard. I don’t have much time for Freud, but when you see a pie-er and recall what the doctor said about the anal-expulsive character, you can’t help thinking he may have been onto something.


No mere question of taste

  1. Doesn't take acid to blind someone. Even a tofu pie in the face could do it to someone wearing hard contact lenses.

    • No it isn't only acid that can do that. What if the person getting hit is allergic to something in the pie?

  2. "it is, indisputably, an assault with intent to intimidate"

    I'd dispute that. It's a media stunt. TV news loves pieing. The guy throws the pie and shouts his slogan, and his slogan gets on TV. It's assault with intent to broadcast.

    What strikes me as so unfair about it is that the victim isn't allowed to strangle the assailant.

  3. the victim isn't allowed to strangle the assailant, either legally or in terms of PR

    I'd like to see the pie-thrower tasered. Then maybe it would not be happening so often.

    • "I'd like to see the pie-thrower tasered."

      You like to see anyone tasered.

      • LOL… there are a few people I'd like to taser, for sure!

  4. "What strikes me as so unfair about it is that the victim isn't allowed to strangle the assailant, either legally or in terms of PR."

    Says who? The Shawinigan Strangler was never charged, so I don't see why others can't follow his example. And Chreiten was not even pie'd, he was strangling people for standing too close.

  5. I dunno, I don't think that would be effective. Besides the fact that we can't really have summary justice, the spectacle of a pie-thrower being tasered on-camera (pie-throwings happen on-camera, that's the whole point) would only generate sympathy for the pie-thrower's cause and thus encourage pie-throwings. As it is, most sensible people's sympathy with PETA just went down another knotch.

  6. Ok, but he *does* make a solid point – that terrorism targets the public at large, while pie-throwing takes the p*ss out of a specific person. It just doesn't fit the definition.

    Funny, reading your first paragraph I wondered whether you were going to extend the argument to attack ads: "…a deliberate, if puerile, attempt to manipulate the political process by spreading fear."

  7. I'd like to see the pie-thrower tasered

    Don't forget the good old Shawinigan Handshake. It's more satisfying than a tasering, and there's less of a chance that it could be accidentally lethal.

  8. I am of two minds about this because I think many MPs deserve much more than a cream pie in face but, in the end, I side with law/order crowd.

    However, I disagree with Byrne's idea of using terror laws to charge protester because I don't like it when courts or pols use laws that were clearly intended for an entirely different purpose/crime. Surely there is some kind of assault charge than can be laid instead of using terror laws.

  9. LOL, clearly I set myself up for that one.

  10. So a campaign of targeted political assassinations wouldn't be regarded as "terrorism" merely because it wasn't random enough? I don't buy it. No "terrorism" short of Andre Breton firing a revolver out a window is truly random in its target selection.

  11. Quite simply, the act of throwing a pie in a politician's face comes nowhere close to meeting the definition of terrorist activity in section 83 the Criminal Code of Canada.

    It does, however, meet the definition of assault in s. 266 of the Code.

  12. Whenever some radical does put poison or acid in a pie, that act will constitute terrorism. In the meantime, let’s not diminish the significance of the phrase “terrorist act” by applying to a poring where only shaving cream was involved. And please, let’s not encourage the Government of Canada to apply anti-terrorist laws willy-nilly, to suppress political messages.

    Ultimately, that’s what this is. Pieing is a publicity stunt. It provides good video footage, and thereby generates media attention. The media attention is a platform for PETA (in this instance) to denounce the seal hunt — a political statement.

    Please note, I have little respect for PETA, and not much sympathy for the anti-sealing movement. And I think the assault charge is fair enough, because pieing does involve an assault on someone’s person.

    But it is also political speech. And it is not a terrorist act. Please — don’t encourage the government to go this route.

    • why does the contents of the pie count : think about it! what if it's a mild acid – or what if it's a mixture of bug spray and vinegar causing a temporary blindeness possible permanent damage – do you see where I am going with this. The mere fact of throwing or pushining anything into anyones face is an assault and if done by an organization to instill fear which it is by definition it is of course then maybe it could be construed as terror – maybe not but a very interesting idea and one where 30 days in jail doeasn't suffice i would like to see much more time involved!

    • "Political speech" that is also an assault isn't "political speech". Obfuscating that distinction is a very serious error, because it is the soul of liberal democracy.

      • I'm willing to accept that most assaults have the side effect of scaring their victims, immediately and residually, but somehow it strikes me as unduly precious to equate assault with terrorism.

  13. Actually, I was saying that you are disguising the difference. The metric you chose to equate to terrorism, "It is meant to humiliate rather than convince, and to warn other politicians that they too may be humiliated. In other words, it's a deliberate, if puerile, attempt to manipulate the political process by spreading fear," is so watered down it doesn't even distinguish violence from other attempts to manipulate the political process. Your definition would have the "soldiers in our streets" ad be a form of terrorism. (Something which, now that I think about it, is probably a more valid example of terrorism than a pie in the face to a specific politician)

    As a fan of the language, I simply thought you'd want to be more precise, especially in an article where you're talking about what defines "terrorism"

  14. Mea culpa, and thanks for the correction. Too late for me to edit now, sadly.

  15. Again…I'm assuming he means 'eco-terrorism', since this involves PETA.

    'Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."[3] The FBI has credited to eco-terrorism 200 million dollars in property damage from 2003 and 2008, and a majority of states within the USA have introduced laws aimed at eco-terrorism'

  16. Yes, that's fair. I'll even upvote it.

  17. Sure, perhaps a "campaign of targeted political assassinations" could cross over into the definition of terrorism.

    But before we get high on our own hyperbole here, let's recall that we're talking about pie-throwing to humiliate public figures. Not coordinated, not a campaign (there's been, what, four such attacks in the last ten years in Canada?) and not assassinations.

    (Not to diminish the wrongness of the act. Personally I think it's wrong for obvious reasons and undesirable overall because we need good leaders. Public humiliation is going to discourage capable people from stepping up and contributing what they can in the political sphere.)

    But a campaign of pie-throwing leading to poison acid pies? A campaign of targeted political assassinations? This was one wanker throwing a pie at a politician and garnering damn near zero support for their trouble. Slow down, Colby.

    "A pieing is not an argument; it is, indisputably, an assault with intent to intimidate." Or – and again, I think it's 100% wrong, I'm just reacting to the overall tone here – it's cheap political theatre.

  18. I remember back in the 70's & 80's that you could pay Santa's Anonymous to throw a pie in the face of your boss, teacher, City Councillor, etc., to raise money for needy kids. Of course, they would inform the target in advance, and the filling really was shaving cream. (It looks like pie, but is much friendlier to clothing.) I'm curious if this means I made financial contributions to a terrorist organization.

    I suggest PETA changes its name to PETCCATATDPS (People for the Ethical Treatment of Cute Cuddly Animals That Aren't Threatened and Deplete Fish Stocks).

    • Charismatic megafauna are already central to environmental campaigns.

  19. Pieing isn't a terrorist act, but it is assault. The fact that up until now the only harm that comes of it is the occasional dry-cleaning bill doesn't make it any less of an assault. Chretien's pie-er got a conditional sentence, but Klein's and Bronconnier's got actual jail time. And deservedly so.

    • No disagreement that it's assault, and if you want to pie someone, there's a good chance you'll be charged. It's still become something of a political tradition since the 70's. Usually it's a statement that the pie-ee is taking themselves too serously, like when Al Pieda pied Ann Coulter. My favourite example is anti-gay activists being hit with fruit pies.

  20. I have been thinking about this for all of a few minutes and I wonder why Brits and Canadians pie their pols while Americans assassinate their presidents.

    • I guess americans figure you don't bring a pie to a gunfight. Legacy of the old west.

  21. You don't mean to diminish the wrongness of the act, but you're pretty sure that it's NOT assault and that it IS theatre? Got it.

  22. It's an old British tradition to throw rotten tomatoes and eggs, pies are recent.

    Americans have their own unique traditions.

  23. I still think this whole PETA-terrorism thing is silly in the extreme, and perhaps even harmful, but I do think it's worth pointing out that the MP in question wasn't saying that the pie-throwing was, or may have been, an "act of terrorism" exactly, but that it's this latest incident from PETA that makes him think that the government should investigate whether their activities, taken as a whole, might constitute the activities of a terrorist organization.

    Still beyond silly imho, but I'd bet there have been some incidents out on the ice in Newfoundland that we'd all take a lot more seriously than this pie to the face (and as a criminal assault, even if not terrorism, the pie stuff is reasonably serious in and of itself).

  24. There is and if you click the link, she was charged.

  25. You said it's "indisputably" assault. I said "Or it's political theatre."

    I didn't argue one way or the other, just pointed out that your "indisputable" declaration could be disputed. Like it has here by other commenters, for example. Sheesh.

  26. joylon

    You've made this charge a number of times. Either provide the context or simply admit you don't care. The guy Chretien throttled was a well known stalker [the kind of guy who would pie you] The thing i'm not sure of is whether Chretien was aware who the guy was. In any case the publics reaction as i recall was along the lines of: "Serve the bastard right". You keep on implying he was some kind of innocent passer- by. This was a rare case of a politician fighting back.

  27. Heh, you do realize that's a perfect set up for "ease of attaining guns" as your answer?

    Although, to be honest, I think it's more to do with the culture of gun worship that happens in the US, and that can happen regardless of the legislation.

    • Heh, you do realize that's a perfect set up for "ease of attaining pies vs. guns" as your answer?

      Have you seen the obesity rates for the U.S. lately? (Stephen Colbert talked about a study last night indicating that obesity rates in the U.S. have plateaued, but not because Americans are eating healthier, but because they've reached a "biological limit", lol)

      I know guns are readily available south of the border, but they're nowhere NEAR as prevalent as pies!!!

      • Yeah, but you can't eat the guns.

  28. Ok, but stretching the definition of "terrorism" to absurd lengths isn't exactly in keeping with the very soul of liberal democracy. Especially considering the extraordinary treatment to which accused terrorists may be exposed.

  29. This is a good observation. It probably has to do with the pedestal apple pie is set on, and therefore pies of all description.

    Then again, it might be that right to bear arms.

  30. Thank you, I didn't read far enough down first time.

    Also, what's up with tofu cream pie? If I am going to get pie in face, I would prefer proper cream pie and not tofu rubbish.

    • Adding insult to insult. "It wasn't even a very good pie!"

    • Cream comes from animals you know. This is a PETA protester we're talking about.

  31. Coming soon…the National Cream Pie Registry

    • Then only the criminals will have high cholesterol!

    • lol, good one!

  32. Pooping puffins?

  33. As an antique pie collector, I object.

  34. "Obfuscating that distinction is a very serious error"

    I wish the distinction was pointed out much more often here in Canada where words and actions are basically considered the same thing by many people. I think schools and parents have stopped teaching "Sticks and stones may break my bones (but words will never hurt me)"

  35. What context is needed, exactly? Chretien strangled someone for getting in his way and cracked wise about it. I care a great deal about this because the Shawinigan Strangler was never charged with anything and I don't like living in a country that practices Droit de seigneur. One set of rules for pols/elite/Liberals and another set for the rest of us is not a good system.

  36. Chretien learned early on that he couldn't rely on the RCMP to protect him from the crazies. A knife-wielding maniac broke into 24 Sussex in 1995 and wandered around inside for twenty minutes before trying to enter the Chretien's bedroom. The Chretiens had only an Inuit sculpture to defend themselves. Aline made a frantic 911 call, telling police that an intruder was trying to kill the Prime Minister.

    From wiki: "Controversially, it took seven minutes for the police to respond to Aline's desperate call about an intruder trying to kill the Prime Minister, in part because the first officer to respond had forgotten his key to the residence, because the officers had decided to surround the house to prevent escape before entering it to ensure the Prime Minister's safety, and because the officer who answered the frantic telephone call first called his supervisor at the nearby Rideau Hall to ask what he should do.

  37. What would the reaction have been if the Minister had been, hypothetically, James Moore (chosen because he is young and male and physically imposing, and for no other reason) and the response was a "playground instinct" punch? My personal involutary response when someone gets in my face like that would be to push/punch/shove back (I have a lot of sympathy for Chretien here). I'm curious if the public/media reaction would be praise or condemnation.

    • I'm curious if the public/media reaction would be praise or condemnation.

      It all depends if it is a Liberal or a Conservative that is doing the push/punch/shove back. We all know if it was a Liberal the lame street media would torque the story that it was the Liberal's right to protect themself but if it was a Conservative the message would be he/she was a big, bad meanie and should not have done it and should be charged with assault.

      • Uh, isn't this particular case one in which a Conservative Minister was attacked and a Liberal MP wants to look in to classifying the attackers as "terrorists". That, and the general tenor of comments here at the Macleans blogs and elsewhere in the media, seems to show your assumption to be incorrect.

        I'd also argue that there are a fairly large number of conservatives who, while perhaps even loathing Chretien, nonetheless had no problem whatsoever with the Shawinigan handshake.

  38. Pie throwing is an assault but it's an incredibly minor one. The cops let far more extreme instances pass every day, like dustups outside a bar where punches are thrown but nobody is really hurt.

    Throwing acid in somebody's face would be far worse. But it is stupid to say that pie throwing is serious because somebody could throw something WHICH IS NOT A PIE.

    Somebody very wisely pointed out in another thread that terrorist acts should actually inspire…terror. Since pieing induces a chuckle at best, I have to say this is something far far different.

  39. Or meant to evoke interest in cloning a certain popular American movie star?

      • That's it! I was referring to bad steering. :)

        No? Ah well.. I tried.

  40. How does somebody sneak a pie into an event like this anyway?

    That lady who pied the Minister looked like she was in the front row.

    Was the pie there conspicuously on her lap the whole time? :)

  41. Chretien actually went out of his way to strangle the guy. He walked away from where his security detail was, to go in completely the other direction. Clearly he was pissed off and wanted to choke the guy. I advocated that he be charged at the time and wore my "Arrest the Crime Minister" shirt, a leftover from the previous office holder.

    I wonder where that shirt is now, I might need it again soon …

  42. See my above response, he walked in the opposite direction, away from the security detail and towards the protester. If he had been charged this detail could have been settled, by a court, not left to us to speculate.

    • It's not up to the Prime Minister to walk where his security detail is, it's up to the security detail to walk where the Prime Minister is. Saying that Chretien "walked away from the security detail" is idiotic. The security detail's job is to be where the person they're protecting is, not the other way around.

  43. They did a focus group of previous victims and found that the pie was appreciated. Forced to change …

  44. Pies are part of our rural heritage, well the long pies anyway.

  45. I have consulted with Pat Robertson on this and thank god (or is that thanks, God) there is a biblical solution with a truly Canadien slant. Ms McCoy should have a nice tourtière shoved in her face. (Beats the hell out of tofu)

  46. 'I care a great deal about this because the Shawinigan Strangler was never charged with anything and I don't like living in a country that practices Droit de seigneur. One set of rules for pols/elite/Liberals and another set for the rest of us is not a good system"

    No you don't. It's clear you only care because it was Chretien or a liberal elite. Even an elite has a right of self defence. The context is obvious. It was an implusive act on the spur of the moment. The guy was no innocent. Regrettable yes – an outrage to justice never. If you want to nail Chretien, a better target would be the pepper spray incident in Vancouver – that was an outrage.

  47. Just like the time Lisa got a hamburger in the face and subsequently ruined Homer's BBQ.

  48. You are probably correct that culture has a lot to with it but I just thought it was curious because all three countries are mainly Anglo – or at least they were.

  49. In my case it would have been a "Meh. That's the chances a pie-thrower takes" No condemnation, but neither would I give credit as I do to Gail for her reaction.

  50. I'm afraid it really is indisputable that a pieing is an assault under the legal definition. When we say a fact is "indisputable" we don't mean "It's impossible that somebody would just choose to ignore it out of sheer bloody-mindedness." Maybe that word "or" doesn't mean what you think it means?

  51. That's new info to me. And it's not how i recall it. But the protester was a well known trouble maker,right. Not that advocate strangling protesters. I seem to remember it as a reaction thing…but it was a while ago.

  52. I think that punch vs. push/shove would be a pretty important distinction vis a vis public perception in that hypothetical, particularly given that the pie-thrower was a woman. A push or shove would likely get praise, or at least indifference. However, if James Moore punched a woman in the face on camera (even a woman rushing at him with a pie) I think that might be a problem for the Minister from a public relations standpoint.

  53. Is that sharia or something?

  54. it is stupid to say that pie throwing is serious because somebody could throw something WHICH IS NOT A PIE

    I agree, except when one is talking about it being "serious" from a protection/security point of view. The point, I think, is that local police, RCMP, security guards, whoever, don't necessarily know that it's "just a pie" when someone leaps out of a crowd and runs at a Minister, and it could be a VERY serious error for them to just assume that it is.

  55. Could also be very serious if they assume it's not a pie, when it is…serious for the thrower.

  56. The pie thrower should be made to wear a seal skin coat in public for one hour per day for a year or face enormous fines.

    • LOL

      I'll go you one better.

      They should make her club a seal.

    • Brilliant! Because of course all the pie thrower's friends would then throw pies, causing more seal skin coats to be worn–the sealing industry will have its best year ever!

  57. Ah yes, the old "a pie for a pie" rule.

  58. I accept your distinction, but the author seemed to be talking about whether terrorist charges were applicable, not the appropriate reaction for security when an unknown threat suddenly materializes. (His argument that fear is being spread is kinda undermined by the fact that to make it a scary issue he had to change it's nature….oooooooooh, what if it had been ACID???? Not so funny then, eh you bleeding heart liberal? Well, no indeed…)

  59. It's not how I remember it, either. I always thought the guy came up on JC. There's video somewhere, but maybe not of the entire incident, ie., the part where it is asserted that Chretien went out of his way.

  60. I don't see how someone throwing a pie is somehow evidence of the RCMP's deficiency as a whole.

    …of whatever individual security personnel were on hand (and from whatever corps), certainly a lapse in their quality of service.

    (If we're going to talk about deficiencies in the RCMP, there are much, much better examples!)

  61. I agree that dealing with pie-throwing under the LAW of "terrorism" would be a big mistake. While we're counting angels, maybe people could read the first sentence I wrote (not saying you didn't, but I'm not so sure about others in the thread).

  62. That's why we have courts, to determine the facts and decide whether it was a reasonable use of force in self defence.

    There wasn't an arrest other than the victim, and there was no interrogation of Mr. Chretien, so it must be up to the prime minister to decide if he can choke someone or not …

  63. More politicians should take the Chretien approach to neanderthals like this: grab them by the throat and throttle them.

  64. You are right it is all fun and games until someone is shot by the security people. Then we will see what the definition of pie throwing really is.

    • I bet no politician in Canada would get hit in the face with a pie for a while after that though.

  65. What do we think of the fact that the woman in question was from New York? How would the Americans feel about a Canadian trying to pie one of their officials. Some one could well be shot for the simple act of trying to throw a pie. What would we think then? Terrorism or assault?

  66. Someone's got to get the courts involved. It could have been the RCMP, but acknowledging the unlikelihood of things going that way, what would have prevented the person the Prime Minister choked from pressing assault charges and/or hiring a lawyer and suing him?

  67. Hmmm, so first it happened one way, and then oh we don't know how it went down we need a court?

    See how malleable facts become a few years after they die down, even in the internet age?

  68. Noted that there was almost no coverage of the event in the US. Wonder what the reaction would be if it were the reverse?

    • What's the American equivalent of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

      Do you suppose the Canadian media would give it a great deal of coverage if a Canadian threw a pie in the face of the Secretary of Agriculture during a speech in Des Moines?

  69. By this metric, chanting "Harper is a disgrace!" or "Explain the Tape, Harper!" is also an act of terrorism. They are meant to humiliate, not convince, and to warn other politicians that they too may be humiliated. It's a deliberate attempt to control the political process by spreading fear that other politicians may be targeted. Yeah, bullocks.

    One of the key things you're forgetting is that terrorism doesn't just target those responsible. Terrorism targets random civilians in the society in order to engage political pressure through fear. This is the difference. An assassination isn't terrorism, it's an assasination. Random shooting of the populace is terrorism. There is a difference.

  70. Maybe "humiliated" was the wrong term here–I suppose humiliation is in the mind of the person being attacked–but you don't really MEAN there's no difference between chanting a slogan at someone and throwing a pie at them. You're just trying to disguise the difference.

  71. Terrorist Act ?? Is he kidding ? Somebody please PIE this guy !

  72. I did thumbs down by mistake. Both your and john g's comment provided a good laugh.

  73. i'm not aware of any reseach linking pieing to terrorism – or even engineers. Agreed labelling this just broadens the definition to the point of the meaningless. Important distinctions need to be preserved.


    Yes, they would. There would be several stories about it, some self flagellating pieces about how a single act can put the entire cross-border relationship in jeopardy, and many days after the event, Rex Murphy would devote a droning monologue to it.

    Then we would all forget about it and move on.

    The Canadian would be remembered in a Wikipedia entry, however.

  75. The activists punishment should fit the crime. Make her feel as vulnerable and humiliated as the politician she attacked. In this case, bury Ms.PETA up to her chest in sand (vulnerable) and then pelt her with small chicken pot pies (humiliating).

  76. Perhaps we have just another example of the serious deficiencies in our once-lauded national police force.

    • Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have an RCMP security detachment? Does she even have a single RCMP guard?

      I'm not certain the RCMP were even there.

  77. Criminal Harassment: Stalking

    Criminal harassment, more commonly known as STALKING, is a crime.
    Generally it consists of repeated conduct that is carried out over a period of time and which causes you to reasonably fear for your safety or the safety of someone known to you.
    Stalking does not have to result in physical injury in order to make it a crime. The law protects you even if the conduct of the stalker is not done with the intent to scare you. It is enough if the conduct does scare you. This may be an advance warning of the possibility of future violent acts….

  78. The pie hag was charged a short while ago for tabe dancing….well, tresspassing.
    It's her second offence,
    she is a stalker.

  79. Fair enough – I agree that it does meet the definition of assault. But as long as we're counting angels on pinheads, some people here did *dispute* whether it should even be considered assault, arguing that it also met the definition of political "speech". In other words, it meets the definition of assault but – some people here have argued – not the spirit of the law.

    So beyond nit-picking, any substantive comments? I think your take on this is overblown, and that defining pie-throwing as terrorism would be a greater offense to our society than the pie-throwing itself.

  80. In a country that had some pride and respect for itself and its government this person would have been beaten to within an inch of its life and then dealt with appropriately. This person is a coward and more than a little stupid as is the organization she represents. Nothing to be proud of here.

    • No matter what we may think of Mr. Cosh, violence is wrong in and of itself, and will only make journalists of all stripes and calibres less likely to speak out.

  81. It has never occurred to the phony radical wankers who fling pies (or to those who dismiss them as cute pranksters) that a pie tin could conceivably contain poison or acid.

    I don't see how this makes any sense. If I can get within pie-throwing distance of someone, I can seriously assault them in a dozen different ways, and I don't need a pie for any of them. It takes very little imagination to choose a weapon less likely to be detected and seized than a pie by whatever security attends these things.

    And "phony radical wankers"? I know it's a blog, but really?

    You wanna talk about Freud, there so much weirdly expressed energy in this column that I had to go back and double check I wasn't missing some sort of Modest Proposal kind of thing. I ask in the gentlest possible manner, did pie cause you a childhood trauma?

  82. How about girls who flash you? Monica was applying her thonge'd force on poor Bill. And if this is allowed, guys will drop trou too.

  83. PETA is currently caring for 26,000 "exotic" animals confiscated from an illegal importer, which include spiders and snakes and green frogs. They often help chickens and have campaigned for years to end the horrific deaths by blood thinners of such aesthetically pleasing animals as rats. Without PETA's undercover work we wouldn't know anything about the goings on in the livestock industry, the way Ringling Bros abuses baby elephants in "training" them. For all the talk of their being rich, they are a flea on the ass of the cattle, hog, poultry, fish and fur industries, to say nothing of the pet industries which continue to include puppy mills. We are damned lucky to have them and the Sea Shepherd and
    Of course Canada could take the high road in this seal fiasco, offer to end the seal hunt if Japan quits butchering dolphins in Taiji (movie – The Cove), whales in the antarctic; China end the drift nets; and the Euros and whoever else is finishing off the Grand Banks offer a moratorium on all fishing including – in fact especially – the endangered the only warm blooded fish, the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna – etc. etc. But it's been awhile since we've taken the high road on anything or at least managed it with aplomb or competence. We all deserve a pie in the face.

  84. As a resident in Gail Shea's riding (I live in Tignish, P.E.I.) I have to point out that Gail has gained enormous sympathy from folks here – even folks who did not vote for her!
    It seems that "getting pie'd" is a politically astute move.
    In light of that, were I a politician, I might look into hiring someone to "pie" me…..

  85. I don't get it. Why would people even wanna do this?