Monday, April 27, 2020

What John Ivison Did Not Say About The Words, Deeds And Actions Of Mr. Sloan.

BaseIs
BaseVille


The following is from John Ivison's recent National Post piece on the Conservative party's response to Conservative party leadership candidate Mr. Sloan's overt racism:

...Even though (current) leader Andrew Scheer is a lame duck, he is still responsible for the credibility of a venerable political party that professes to represent all Canadians.

In a multi-ethnic country where visible minorities make up a quarter of the population, no party tainted by racism can win power.

Yet when Scheer was asked to denounce Sloan’s statement, he turtled, saying he did not want to comment on the behaviour of a leadership candidate. That didn’t stop then interim Conservative Rona Ambrose dumping on Kellie Leitch’s bogus “Canadian values” test in the last leadership go-round.

If Scheer doesn’t see the need to decry comments from a sitting member of caucus that tars all Conservative MPs and the party with the brush of intolerance, he should go now...



Now.

Do you see what Mr. Ivison did not say?



_________
And, no, I did not cherry pick...The good Mr. Ivison does not flat out say that Mr. Sloan's racism itself is objectively bad anywhere in the column...Instead, it's all about how said racisdm is bad for Conservative party politics....In fact, the first sentence of the colum is the following..."It’s not so much the bigotry as the hypocrisy that is so exasperating."...So, what is a reasonable and logical take home message for those actually paying attention?...Well, if the entire country was more like the base, then, perhaps, meh...


.

5 comments:

Lew said...

Mr. Ivison writes that Mr. Sloan’s post was a “thinly disguised appeal for support from the intolerant fringe of the Conservative Party”, and “Many Conservatives will be grateful to two of the party’s newest MPs for offering a beacon of hope and decency.”

One would expect this to be a perfect opportunity then for Mr. Sloan’s rivals in the Conservative leadership contest to denounce him and gain advantage by illustrating how they are against what Mr. Ivison calls the “clearly xenophobic” utterances. But that didn’t happen.

Which leaves me thinking that rivals like Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole (not to mention the party brass) are banking that when it comes right down to it in this case the Conservative grateful, not the intolerant, constitute the fringe.

RossK said...

Lew--

I think you can be sure that very fine folks like Mess'rs O'Toole and MacKay are also happy to have Mr. Sloan expand the collective CPC envelope such that all the intolerance that fits can, well.....

...Fit.


.

e.a.f. said...

They don't have a problem with racism because a lot of them hare "Lantent" racists. it only bothers them if it costs them votes. right now they think it won't. The Conservatives just don't' get it and ones like Ammbrose left to do other things. I suspect she saw the writing on the wall.

Keith said...

Lew’s analysis is spot on, can’t add anything to it.

Remember that Scheer beat Maxime Bernier 51% – 49% for the top job, which gives an indication of where the CPC members that voted are at.

Also the “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line, niqab and Canadian values, Dr. Kelly Leitch & Ambassador Chris Alexander front and centre with those issues, were a strategic part of the then campaign, which made a lot of noise, but laws already existed against such acts, but hey, it stirred the base up.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-vow-to-establish-barbaric-cultural-practices-tip-line/article26640072/

Now they need every vote they can troll for.

RossK said...

eaf & Keith--

The 'potential' loss of votes is all Mr Ivison was concerned with in his column.

Clearly, the CPC braintrust is also worried about the 'actual' loss of votes from those very fine folks that supported Mr. Bernier but stayed in the party last time....As for next time, well?


.