The Canadian Media is Shrouding the Federal Election in Darkness #elxn42

The Canadian election is merely nine days away, and the campaign has now descended into a phase not too unlike The Dark Ages. During the last two weeks of this eleven-week battle of attrition, the mainstream media’s fickle attention span has somehow remained fixated primarily on the minuscule niqab fray, instead of devoting top coverage to the many real and substantial issues facing our dear nation. It is curious why the mainstream media has suddenly found such concerted concentration on what it deems to be such a minor issue–and it’s worth spending the time unveiling.

  • David Murrell

    I take it the posted writer is not a conservative. That’s OK, but I disagree. I like it that the establishment, anti-Harper cartel are playing up the issue, for what little support Harper has can only increase with the corrupt, biased news coverage.

    The reason the corporate media keep pushing a losing issue is because the media supports the niqab, given that the niqab symbolizes a totalitarian, radical Islamist ideology. The ideology is anti-Semitic and anti-human rights. The edit supports these ideas.

    • DMB
    • theunknownsleeper

      Heh – you haven’t seen the Conservative polling numbers have you? Their attempt to sway Canadians with their hatreds and intolerances has backfired. Harper’s dream of totalitarianism will die because Canadians are better than him and his fellow fascists.

      • Who cares about Harper’s polling numbers? This isn’t about Harper, it’s about showing your face when you publicly swear allegiance to Canada. More than 2/3 Canadians support the policy — many of whom are Harper’s opponents. That makes you the totalitarian and the fascist, bud.

        • theunknownsleeper

          You are woefully ignorant of the terms that you are so carelessly bandying about. Google “tyranny of the majority” to educate yourself. Face coverings are legal and Harper is a buffoon. That first is true regardless of the the veracity of the second. The second is mere opinion, but roundly recognized by anybody who understands Canadian law and Harper’s disdain for it..

          • iputyahtosleeper – A white hood and robe is legal to but does that mean that everyone should be allowed to wear one while getting sworn in as a citizen?
            What about a confederate or ISIS flag?
            A swastika?
            The niqab is not a religious item but instead is a symbol of cultural oppression on women in certain middle eastern countries.
            The test for it being a symbol of oppression is not a Canadian left winger blabbering and nodding his head saying he thinks it’s fine but whether or not women are allowed to “not” wear it in the countries where it is most prevalent and what happens to them should they freely choose not to wear it (you know, like a person who has equal rights to decide what clothing they decide to wear).
            The answer is that they are not allowed to not wear it and the government and/or the men in the family are allowed to harshly punish them for not wearing so it can hardly be considered a free will choice to wear it or not.
            One just has to look at the beautiful, but illegal (in the middle eastern countries that enforce the niqab), photos that are springing on the internet that are celebrating women who are out in public NOT wearing a naqib. These women, wearing western clothing and hairstyles, are risking bodily injury and maybe even death, to be free of an oppressive piece of clothing that you choose to call a “choice.”
            How odd it must feel to turn your back on women, who you once championed, in order to fall in line with a belief system that is the polar opposite of what the left had always believed in.
            But then again when you don’t stand for anything you’ll fall for everything.

          • theunknownsleeper

            You cannot liberate a woman by stripping her. Your barbaric practices make you the oppressor.

          • iputyahtosleeper – Ha ha ha ha….yes “stripping” her was the entire basis of the ban.
            Your religion of choice oppresses women at every level and your continuing support of it shows what your true colours really are.
            Maybe you could tell me, in all the countries that force their women to wear the niqab, what happens to them if they “choose” not to wear it?
            I mean, if you truly believe it’s not an oppressive garment and that it’s a woman’s choice to wear it in Canada, what really happens if she chooses not to wear it in those countries?
            If the answer is anything other than “nothing” it’s oppressive to women.
            I guess all those years of the left “protecting” women’s rights were just the typical left wing lip service.

          • theunknownsleeper

            You Far Right kooks are so silly with your nonsense arguments that only make sense to other Far Right nutters.

          • You’re aware that the Niqab is at best a cultural not a religious requirement aren’t you?

            It is likely the Niqab challenge was an act of political Islam attempting to insinuate itself into Canada’s social fabric

            The religious authorities in Pakistan, the Niqab women’s home state, have just decreed that the Niqab has no religious basis.


            You’re also aware that you’re poster girl has some very seedy Islamist affiliations aren’t you? As in terrorist affiliations?


            Now why would such a brilliant liberal mind as your own defend this woman?

          • theunknownsleeper

            I agree with your opinion of the niqab. I feel, however, that the politics of inclusion works better than that of exclusion. I would prefer to invite someone in and convince them to remove her face covering. Stripping a woman is not liberating her (I know my choice of words may be overly bombastic, but meh!). And note that I am not precisely defending an individual per se. I am defending the existing law. And regarding my conversation with UrKel: we have a history, so I apologize if it has stretched the propriety of discourse here. You let me know.

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            And that’s where your side looses the plot.
            The “politics of inclusion” doesn’t work so well with people that already want to self-exclude.
            Would you support my “right” to be sworn in as a Canadian citizen while wearing a Klan robe?

          • theunknownsleeper

            A Klan robe is not cultural dress. It is a costume of hate. Why do bigots always want to compare Muslim garb to their own racist uniforms?

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            So this is the totality of your rebuttal? Wow! You really are retarded.

          • theunknownsleeper

            Whilst the totality of your internet discourse is insulting people. Cowardly keyboard warriors like your are all too common in anonymous forums. I shall no longer talk to you until you have something intelligent to say. At least Blazingcatfur makes intelligent discourse even if I disagree with him. So far he is the ONLY value I see in this forum. Too bad the readers of his forum are only here to howl like monkeys and fling feces.

          • “A Klan robe is not cultural dress. It is a costume of hate.” Nonsense. You’re using “culture” to mean “stuff I don’t want to ban”. The KKK is a cultural phenomenon. It has a history. It has traditions. It has a belief system. If a klan robe is not a manifestation of “culture”, what is it a manifestation of? And don’t say “hate”. “Hate” and “culture” don’t contrast any more usefully than “Leslie Nielsen” and “lime green”.

            The difference here is that you are prepared to indulge one hateful cultural symbol and not another.

          • theunknownsleeper

            Actually that is a fair argument. I will have to consider that.

          • Well thanks. And, look, “hate” is in the eye of the beholder. I’m not arguing that the KKK isn’t hateful, I’m saying that not everyone considers it hateful. That’s where values come in. Canadian values – not a very elegant phrase – must not be allowed to include sharia.


          • Then you fail to understand that Islam is a supremacist cult at it’s heart.

          • theunknownsleeper

            That is ridiculous. All religions (other than perhaps Buddhism) centralize power in an authority. You are letting your unfounded fear and hatred distort your perception of reality.

          • FactsWillOut

            “All religions (other than perhaps Buddhism) centralize power in an authority.”

            “Only fascists attempt to divide the world into two camps. Modeling complex socially dynamic structures as simple binary systems helps small tiny minds to cope with a big bad scary world that keeps them awake at night soaking the sheets.”

            Look whose dividing the world into two camps. Fascist.

          • theunknownsleeper

            Not me. But feel free to make things up to fit your distorted version of reality.

          • iputyahtosleeper – and don’t forget they make “no sense” to the willfully blind like yourself.
            Don’t worry we can all see your flip flop on your so called “base beliefs” whenever they come in conflict with your religion of choice.
            We all know that when there is conflict the “base beliefs” are dropped like a hot potato because it’s always important to stick with the one who can put up the strongest resistance against whoever you happen to hate that week.
            It’s nice to see how the left display’s it’s loyalty to it’s special interest groups.

          • Hey, sleepy, do you reckon that woman’s still got her clit?

            I bet she doesn’t, and I bet getting it sliced off wasn’t her choice. Stupid little man.

            If you’re trying to get banned I’ll be happy to help.

          • theunknownsleeper

            What on earth would I get banned for? For being liberal? If that is all it takes then I have no desire to be part of such a fascist community. So by all means oblige away. But do keep supporting the forced stripping of women if that is what your moral compass allows. And I make no presumptions whatsoever about her genitalia. I will leave that to the lesser minds in this conversation.

          • No. For being pointless, annoying, repetitive and abusive. For wasting bandwidth and taking over threads like a strain of mutant algae, rendering intelligent and interesting discussion difficult or impossible. Seriously, you don’t want to use any common politeness, but you want to use this blog? Hit the tip jar. Why should anyone be obliged to host you?

          • theunknownsleeper

            Pray tell. Where is this “intelligent and interesting discussion”? I came here looking for it, but all I see is you high-fiving and back-slapping all the like minds whilst insulting everyone who disagrees with you. If I feared challenge to my preconceptions I would hang out at the Huff. I prefer to be challenged. Do your really just want people who agree with you? If so then I will be happy to leave and go somewhere a bit more challenging. I have no interest in just being a punching bag so that you can build up your self esteem.

          • “Lesser minds”, forsooth. Do you really think that people don’t realize that you’re a not-terribly-bright person who’s parroting opinions he’s been told are smart-people opinions out of a deep-seated and thoroughly justified sense of intellectual inferiority?

            I really get sick of little twerps like you. I wouldn’t mind you if you could manage to be original or remotely interesting.

          • theunknownsleeper

            Thanks for maintaining your palpably obvious level of class. Feel free to come back with some more insults if that is what makes your day. Cheers. I came here looking for a conservative to argue with. One who simply flings mud is not worth my time and quite frankly bores me.

      • iputyahtosleeper – Hey I was wondering, because you were the one whining so hard about it when the CONS were able to form a government from it, if the liberals only get a small 30 something % of the vote are you going to consider them a legit government?
        Remember how you wailed and whined about the CONS forming a government on such a small percentage? and how you didn’t believe you should be allowed to form a government on such a low percentage? When I said that there was no reason they couldn’t?
        Do you remember that?
        I’m sure you don’t and I’m sure now if it’s the liberals that get in with those same low percentages suddenly you’ll consider it a strong “mandate government” because that is how you roll. Point out what you think is unfair, demand that it be banned and changed, and then cry and cry and cry when you lose but if you win under the same conditions quickly stop crying and even more quickly stop demanding that any changed be made because now it favours us.
        Typical typical typical.
        Also you hear today that the great Obama has broke yet another of his platform election promises and has decided that he’ll keep the war in Afghanistan going for a few more years? I guess the JV team has him nervous about taking over another country.

        • theunknownsleeper

          Blah blah blah – you still use an awful lot of words to put words in other people’s mouths so that you have something to criticize. Learn to debate like an adult.

          • iputyahtosleeper – “Learn to debate like an adult” – ???
            It’s not me, the problem is the child I direct my comments to.
            He’s to simplistic and from hour to hour he changes his position from one side of the spectrum to the other based on the way the wind blows.
            And now he feels empowered because his chosen God of the left has been elected and now believes no-one can challenge anything he says.

          • theunknownsleeper

            Classy as always, UrKel. You still think name-calling is a debate. You’ll never be a real boy at this rate.

          • iputyahtosleeper – Still intimidated by my comments I see.
            Don’t worry I never expect an proper rebuttal from you because everyone can see from your non-replies say more about you and your position than anything that you will ever type yourself.

          • theunknownsleeper

            Back with more insults. That is all you have ever had.

          • iputyahtosleeper – It isn’t but if it was it’s still about 1,000,000 percent more than you have ever had.
            I noticed that you still haven’t made any rebuttals but just more running away.
            Not unexpected.
            But hey I’m easy to find come and visit me anytime you work up the courage.

          • theunknownsleeper

            Nothing to rebut. You’ve said nothing.

          • iputyahtosleeper – Oh no! Has your reading comprehension dropped that low?
            Anyway I don’t have time right now to pander empty words with you but I will look around for your “I still hate Harper” comments and I’m looking forward to you explaining how, from this point forward, every gaffe, misstep and policy failure that justa turdeau makes will always be Harper’s fault.
            The Sun dumped disqus before I got to ask you how turdeau’s promise to ring up 3 straight $10 billion (of course we all know it will likely be twice that) deficits makes his fiscal policies any better than Harper’s?
            Remember how you went on and on and on about how Harper ruined Canada by running deficits and stimulus packages during the global meltdown that rivalled the dirty thirties? Remember that? Remember how you kept reminding us how papa chretien ran balanced budgets and paid down the debt (by slashing, hacking and destroying our military before robbing every cash generating program like EI and CPP (leaving meaningless IOU’s) in order to get enough money to pay his kickbacks in that thing called the sponsorship scandal? Do you remember all that?
            Now how on earth are you going to twist justa turdeau’s massive deficits into a good, just and angelic thing while Harpers deficits were soul destroying for Canada? Heck justa isn’t even in office yet or even tried to trim any fat and he’s already overspending taxpayers money.
            Left wing liberals, always ready to give the shirt off your back to pay for their social programs.
            Also I guess now that justa has puled our CF-18’s out of Syria we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief because now there will no longer be any reason for terrorist attacks against us because now we are friends with the terrorists and will be giving them winter coats and moving them into Canada. Right?

          • theunknownsleeper

            I quite literally said none of those things you are attributing to me. The funny thing is that you say that you “don’t have time right now” and then proceed to write several empty paragraphs of meaningless bafflegab, much of it nonsense you have made up, attributed to me, and then criticized. Your M.O. never changes does it?

          • iputyahtosleeper – OK…sure…you didn’t say any of those things. You have been a 100% supporter of Harper and his fiscal policies the entire time in office.
            You call them “empty” because you know how foolish your liberal god’s fiscal policies really are indefensible and know I’d make you eat you words if you came back supporting them.

          • theunknownsleeper

            You make stuff up and then attribute it to others as a means of argument. Then when you get called out for it you replace it with the exact opposite as a means of ridiculing the suggestion. Which is silly because you are the one who made it all up in the first place. Your fevered mind must be a fascinating place.

  • FactsWillOut

    The MSM’s concentration on the Niqab ban will probably ensure a Harper majority.

    • Yep. Even in “hippie” B.C. more than 2/3 support for the niquab ban. None of this public support for the policy would have happened if the media didn’t obsess against it — Harper didn’t make it a big issue, the Left media did and it backfired.

      And the fact that the media continues to obsess — in spite of the fact that the courts have ruled in their favour (after all, the lady did in fact swear the oath with the niquab and was granted citizenship) is something bordering on a mass dissociative disorder. They won in the courts, so why are they still complaining?

      It’s almost as if the media now feels a need to brainwash the rest of Canada through crude repetition into agreeing with the courts: “Banning niquabs is bad, banning niquabs is bad, banning niquabs is bad, banning niquabs is bad…”

  • Jon Neufeld

    I disagree with your assertion that the Lame Stream Media Party has a ‘fickle attention span’. Their attention, IMHO, is and has been firmly fixed on defeating the Conservative Party. They will bring to the forefront any and every thing that advances this agenda, and bury any and every thing that may counter it.

    I think they miscalculate on the nickerbocker thing, by far the majority of Canadians agree with the Conservative Party that it is not an unreasonable expectation that a person reveal themselves when they take an oath of allegiance to their country, but that only indicates a miscalculation, not a short attention span. They remain firmly and steadfastly dedicated to the downfall of responsible government in Canada.