Truth in advertising -

Truth in advertising


Vic Toews may or may not want the people of Provencher to believe Michael Ignatieff has no time for Ukranians. Conservative backbencher Tim Uppal used a members’ statement to raise the same allegation in March. A not disinterested blogger, writing for the National Post, did likewise in February.

For the record, Dan Gardner debunked (link fixed) this more than three years ago. Our John Geddes did likewise a week later. And when the National Post editors reviewed Blood and Belonging earlier this year they didn’t even see fit to note the allegedly scandalous passage in question.


Truth in advertising

  1. It's one thing to do the "negative advertising" thing, but it's something entirely different to intentionally deceive the public like this.

    And if you didn't think a person like Vic Toews would have people working for him that are capable of this, then you're just naive.

  2. The part that annoys me is the Conservative supporters who don't even look at what was actually written, rather just parrot the talking point of the day. Through laziness, stupidity or blind partisanship, ordinary members of the public are misleading other ordinary members of the public–in this case Ukrainian-Canadians. The contempt of Canadians that shines from the Conservative Party through this planned behaviour is breathtaking, albeit, sadly, somewhat deserved.

    • Conservatives learned from the best — they saw what was done to their people by the Liberal backroom boys in the 1990s.

      Now, do unto others as they have already done to you does not make for high-minded politics — it continues a vicious circle, and those returning fire tend to give it even harder — but it does seem to give short-term gains.

      Have no fear — Kinsella is in the Liberal war room, and he knows how it was done. Wrote the book on it, even.

      So the cycle will continue.

      • Alright, I'll bite. Where did the Liberals lie about what Harper, Day or Manning said and felt about a minority group?

        • Hey, who's lying? All you have to do — as these pamphlets do — is take things out of context and put a sinister or ridiculous spin on it. (Barney the dinosaur on Canada AM.)

          But as for specific charges…

          Day's ire was sparked by comments from Liberal cabinet minister Elinor Caplan on Tuesday night. She told a crowd in her Toronto-area riding that the Alliance was a reflection of its supporters.

          "Their supporters are Holocaust deniers, prominent bigots and racists," Caplan said,

          That's politics. That's life.

          Doesn't excuse taking paragraphs from Ignatieff's books out of context — it's still awfully silly. (And why on earth the Tories are worried about those seats in Manitoba, I have no idea.) But I'm amused by the shocked reactions from the Liberals.

          • So admitted current Conservative lies are justified because a Liberal slammed the Reform Party in an allegedly unfair manner nine years ago?

            Want to take another run at that bit of rationalization?

          • How is supplying direct quotes from Blood and Belonging lying?

          • So current Conservative lies are justified because a Liberal slammed the Reform Party in an allegedly unfair manner nine years ago?

            Want to take another run at that bit of rationalization?

          • there is huge distinction between Caplan and what the Conservatives are routinely doing.

            Without in any way trying to excuse Caplan for such poor behaviour, she clearly states that it is the supporters who are X, Y and Z. Any voter is going to automatically dismiss the importance of this because we all know you can't control who supports you, in the same way you dismiss claims about a candidates family (like Americans did with the endless attacks of conservatives on Obama's brother and grandmother, etc.).

            Conservatives on the other hand are in a very formal way with taxpayer money directly accusing Ignatieff of something that is false and has been shown to be false. It isn't just hyperbole about "the kind of people who support Conservatives"; it is direct comment on the kind of person Ignatieff is.

          • One is an attempt at character assination on a bunch of anonymous strawmen and associate Day with them.

            The other is an actual character assassination of a real person.

  3. The Dan Gardner link actually links to a Steve Janke piece that is a blatant attempt to inflate nothing into a political scandal.

    "Am I going over old ground here? Perhaps. But recent events are stirring up trouble on this front again."

    In other words, recent events are giving people like Janke an excuse to trot this thing out again and try again to stir up a scandal.

    "I've been told, anecdotally, that Wrzesnewskyj's banishment to the backbenches is a big deal in the Ukrainian community…"

    Or as Fox News puts it, "Some people are saying…"

    "I suppose Ignatieff can use his I've-been-misunderstood line, but it's getting a bit old…"

    That's right – I'm going to repeatedly promote a misunderstanding as a scandal. After a few times, the fact that it's still based on a misunderstanding starts to get "old" and is no longer valid for some reason.

    "Eventually the most patient Liberal supporter will demand a leader that is understood more often than not."

    Even though this is not a new misunderstanding, it's the same-old same-old agitprop broadcast by the same people, Liberals are somehow going to get tired of Ignatieff.

    "All that presupposes that Ignatieff cares what Ukrainians think."

    Kind of like Janke's entire article presupposes that he has any interest in the truth. Honestly, how does such shallow, transparently misleading crap get published in a newspaper?

    • I am personally quite certain that Steve Janke does not beat his wife. I have no evidence to suggest he does. However, people may wonder whether Steve Janke beats his wife. We really have no evidence to prove that he does not and has never beaten his wife. He has never denied that he beats his wife. I'm not sure it is something he's ever been asked but maybe someone might want to ask that question. I suppose Janke can use the "that's just ridiculous" non-denial denial, but even if he flat out denied beating his wife, isn't that what a wife-beater would say anyway?

      All that presupposes that anyone cares who Steve Janke is or what he thinks.

      • And if Steve Janke were asked whether he beat his wife, and if he kept denying it, eventually that denial would get a bit old. Even the most patient reader would demand a writer who does not have to keep denying that he beats his wife.

  4. I agree that the "Ukraine" quotes have been taken out of context and blown out of proportion by people who aren't fit to shine the boots of a Shumka dancer.

    He's not anti-Ukrainian.


    Having grown up with Ukranian-Canadian schoolmates, dated Ukrainian-Canadian prairie girls, and attended many a Ukrainian-Canadian wedding, I can assure you that to many, many people, these excerpts make Ignatieff come across like a pompous Russian blowhard.

  5. The Liberals complaining about hardball politics.

    That's a laugh.

  6. Correct me if I'm wrong ( like that wouldn't happen anyway ) but wasn't there a local riding kerfuffle over Ignatieff's usurping a Liberal of Ukrainian background in his initial riding nomination ?