Jack Layton's crew certainly had a big day in the House of Commons yesterday. Proving their on-going irrelevancy yet again, Dipper MP Irene Mathyssen accused Tory Wunderkid James Moore of having porn on his laptop computer. The Peeping Tom Dipper seems to have miss fired...it just was not true. This is quite aside from the issue of privacy that the whole case conjures up.
I guess Jack and his pals never read the Sun!
Beware if any NDipper is nearby...they could be looking over your shoulder at whatever you may be doing. Come to think of it the "Big Socialist Brother" tag is one that the Dippers have always carried. Now we know it's also "Big Socialist Sister" too.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I dont believe she said it was porn. ANd to bwe honest with you it is inappropriate for an MP to be looking at even the sunshine girl in the house where other members can see him. If I had to work behind him, I would file a complaint as well. Mine however would go something like this, "Grow up! and stop acting like a teenaged boy. It's not your high school locker. It's the house of Commons! Have some decorrum do your job, and let me do mine without having to look at that crap!"
Get it? Family members of Pickton's victims were told this week they couldn't have blankets to keep warm in a courthouse that's freezing overnight, when no one else is there because there is a certain decorum that has to be maintained in a courthouse.
Get it. No I dont think any of the men I've seen post on this do. Do none of you ever grow up?
the problem I have with this story is that it was supposed to be his girlfriend's picture on his laptop, but he denied having a picture all together, if it was his girl, then why didn't he just say it right away instead of saying he didnt know what the member was talkin about???im wondering if it was really his gf, or did he have to think about a good explanation first....im not a dipper supporter but we all know how greasy the consies are..
Would you look at all the anonymous dippers spewing as though the were tories.
Tsk Tsk.
The pictures were not on the computer, well maybe in his cache for viewed webpages, it was on his webiste.
It does bring up the question though whether anyone should be surfing the web while the house is conducting business.
Its too bad Mr. Moore can't sue because this sort of damage never goes away. Its like a newspaper running an incorrect story on page one and then retracting it on page 30 the next day. No one sees it and the doubt has been firmly planed in the viewers minds.
Like anon above saying "was it really his gf"
What I would like to know is how could she see his laptop screen? I mean her bench is at quite a distance and the angle would be wrong. Did she walk behind him and look? Why didn’t she confront him before bring it up in the House? Does she own a laptop?
I agree with you on this Jay. He denied looking at pornography, and did not consider his friend as pornographic. Of course he would deny looking at pornography while in the House, he never knew what she based her comment on in the first place. It would be like saying that the picture beside you name in comments is pornographic – it is not. Yet she thought what she saw was right at first glance. Maybe after gender sensitivity training she will not jump to conclusion without approaching the person she wants to accuse.
= = = = = = = = = = =
I like what one blogger wrote – please pay attention Ms. Anonymous of first post – something you should go to also.
“I call for Irene Mathyssen to be sent to attend gender sensitivity training. During the training, she will be asked to learn that not all men are slavering dogs, and that all men deserve the benefit of the doubt. Men deserve to have the opportunity to explain their actions first, to face their accusers, and to be considered innocent until the preponderance of evidence proves otherwise.
She must learn that public humiliation is not the way we deal with an issue like this before the facts are known.
Indeed, she must learn that her own sense of righteous indignation is not a substitute for those facts that she seemed disinclined to seek out first.
When Irene Mathyssen learns to treat men as individuals deserving respect and consideration, then her apologies will mean something. As it is, it seems that Irene Mathyssen objectifies men, assuming all of them to be dumb rutting animals.
I don't know what sort of men she's used to dealing with in the rank and file of the NDP”
http://stevejanke.com/archives/248534.php Angry in the Great White North
= = = = = = = = = =
And one of the best replies in comment section stated:
From: Gabby in QC
• Did St. Irene (Mathyssen) raise a ruckus about her former boss jumping bare-assed into a lake with Rick Mercer?
• Did she object to Lib. MP Scott Brison posing for a nude calendar?
• Both she and her boss participate in Gay Pride parades, where there are various stages of undress. Doesn't she think that objectifies human beings, especially since many participants dress up as tarted-up women?
Steve, you're right. I think a little sensitivity training is in order.
Thank you, Misses Mathyssen and Redman, but I don't need you to protect my rights.
= = = = = = = =
Ralph WTF are you talking about. Read my post again, because you obviously dont get it.
HIs behaviour was inappropriate in the house of Commons no matter who it was a picture of and it demeans all women in Canada. It has no business in the house. He can take it to the little boys room or his mommies house where he can fantasize in his teenaged bedroom.
Not on the taxpayers dime, half of whom are women.
Post a Comment