What’s Old is Two Faced Again

Made In Canada hypocrisy. There’s nothing more Canadian than the Conservative Party serving up the opposite of what it said it would do earlier. You can set your watch to the opposite of whatever time they tell you it is, so long as you wait a few weeks or a few years. Dependable.

Tides Canada, public enemy number one, according to our esteemed POS Ministers of the Crown. Well, that was after Baird said this about their money:

When a deal to protect B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest was brokered in January 2007, one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s most trusted lieutenants singled out the environmental and social justice organization Tides Canada as being crucial in Ottawa’s decision to contribute $30 million to the plan.

John Baird, then Harper’s new environment minister and now head of foreign affairs, said the Harper government acted due to fear that the unprecedented $60-million contribution raised by Vancouver-based Tides – the vast majority from U.S. foundations – was in jeopardy of being lost to the total $120-million fund.

I was tremendously concerned . . . that we could lose that, particularly the money coming from abroad, so we didn’t want to have that happen,” Baird said at a Vancouver event where he shared the stage with first nations leaders, and Tides chief executive Ross McMillan.

Baird spoke emphatically in Vancouver about the importance of habitat to 355 species in the 6.4 million-hectare rainforest. He also stressed his commitment to keep working with environmentalists and first nations.

“I hope that this is a beginning, not an end.”

Flash-forward to late 2011 and the world has turned upside-down.

Harper warned last November that “significant American interests” are funnelling [sic] money through “environmental groups and others” – presumably first nations – to stop Enbridge Inc.’s $5.5 billion Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast, where huge tankers will cruise the waters near the Great Bear Rainforest.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver followed a few weeks later with an open letter denouncing environmental groups as foreign-funded “radical” organizations determined to “hijack” Canada’s need to develop natural resources.

Tides was the only organization Oliver named in interviews.

Oliver, and his POS sidekick Kent, are the Minister of Threatening Canadians, and Minister of Turd Piles, respectively. Damn Internet! If only there was a way to control what people do there so they can’t use it to learn about blatant hypocrisy. That thought takes us to the next segment of this blog post…


Stephen Taylor and random Blogging Tories are questioning why snark master Adam Carroll is apparently working for the Liberals again after being dismissed for his particularly awesome (but badly executed) stunt earlier this year just prior to the Robocalls scandal hitting the news. Carroll assumed the identity of Vikileaks30 to protest the ridiculous Vic Toews C-30 bill which was widely panned and promptly shelved.

If it’s such a big deal for a fired Liberal to end up working for them again, what do Conservatives think about rejected MP candidates winding up in the Senate, or working as shadow MPs on the public dime? Oops. At least the Liberals are paying for their previously rejected employee, who perhaps broke protocol for work computers, but did nothing illegal in exposing Toews’ sordid divorce details to bluntly make a valid point about the effect his bill will have on people.

If Sona is still not a CPC worker drone accused of working the phone, and rejected CPC MPs give up their Senate seats on the government teats, then the Cons can throw stones from their porcelain thrones.


63 responses to “What’s Old is Two Faced Again

  1. Sadly this post misses it’s entire reason for being. The government simply wants advocacy groups to stop acting like fake charities and cheating on their taxes. It gives all charities a bad name.

    Even Fruitfly Dave and Forest Unethics get it. Fully knowing they were breaking the law, they altered their ‘charity’ model to address their obvious advocacy platforms and thus protect their ‘charitable’ status. Both Fruitfly and Unethics can continue, ad nauseum, their mindless diatribe with NO restrictions. They just can’t mascarade as charities.

    Amazing how Greenlibdipps scream so loud about American interference EXCEPT when it’s to their own advantage.

    • The post also proves that Saskboy has yet to decide if he wants to continue being a foul-mouthed little boy who uses his blog to satisfy his desperate craving for attention, or if he plans to actually grow up, get serious and start a career in politics.

      (he seems to be laboring under the delusion that he can have it both ways…that his political opponents won’t reprint and use his past history of outrageous, ridiculous statements against him when the time comes)

      Live and learn, little guy…:)

      • Oooh, the attempted irony of claiming my words will be used against *me*, when the thrust of the post is Baird’s two-faced nature coming back to bite him. Good dodge, Fred from BC, big guy.

  2. You might have an argument redintheface if Harper wasn’t just targeting charities that have differing opinions then he did. But Harper is just trying to shut down dissent, not clean up charity funding.

    Thus the targeting of Suzuki for having the gall to present scientific evidence of global climate change and environmental damage of the tar sands.

    But what do you expect when the parties ethics voice submitted fraudulent invoices while breaking election funding laws?

    • Except for one thing G no other charities are breaking the law. Not Big Brothers Big Sisters, not Goodwill, not The Salvation Army. Charities must, in order to have charitable status and allow tax breaks, perform a certain amount of charitable work. These are legally required and have been so for some time. Enviro”charities” don’t meet that threshhold. Advocacy spending is limited to 10% of their budget. They don’t meet the standard criteria.

      Forest Unethics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tides Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tides USA, can be not-for-profit like Ethical Oil and spend till their hearts content… they just can’t give out charity tax receits.

      There are no, repeat NO, restrictions on what enviro”charities” can say, what they can do, how much they spend, what they can spend, who they can lobby, who they can protest or which issues to speak on… just like Ethical Oil.

      Funny how envirocon groups cheat on their taxes while lobbying government to spend other peoples tax money!!!!

      As for Fruitfly Dave, perhaps you can help me, I’ve been looking on his web site and can’t find the ‘scientific’ papers on his fish farming advocacy. The have been taken down because the ‘science’ is no science at all. Diamond Dave can’t explain the 100,000,000 salmon that showed up on the Fraser either.

      Perhaps one of 3 house, 5 kids, jet setting, world touring Diamond Daves 15 paid LOBBYISTS might know? Perhaps the $1,000,000 paid anually by Power Corp Canada to his foundation could fund this?

      Fraudulent ‘charities’ hurt those most in need the most. Sadly, this doesn’t seem to matter to you. Very sad indeed.

  3. Except, redintheface, the cons are changing the laws to suit themselves and stifle dissent. Take the change that just passed in the omnibus deathstar bill that allows Revenue Canada to revoke charitable status if the chair of the charity does something the conservatives don’t like (which means disagrees with them). That reads almost as a bill to revoke Suzuki’s charity.

    According to the new bill:

    Effective January 2012, the Income Tax Act was amended to provide that charities and registered Canadian amateur athletic associations (“RCAAAs”) may have their registration refused or revoked, or be suspended from issuing official donation receipts, if an “ineligible individual” acts as a member of the board of directors, a trustee, officer or like official, or controls or manages the operation of the organization. An “ineligible individual” is someone who
    controlled or managed a charity or association during a period in which the charity was engaged in conduct that constituted a serious breach of the requirements for registration for which its registration was revoked in the past five years;

    Much has been made of the changing goal posts, whereby what used to be called scientific research and results are now called partisan work. Suzuki has worked for decades giving similar results, yet only with this government is his work called partisan. Its part of their anti-science, pro-tar sands plan for wealth in the west to the 80 or so oil lobbyists who hit them hard before they wrote bill c-38.
    As the Hilltimes so correctly pointed out, this bill is a gift for oil lobbyists.

    Are you also a oil lobbyist apologist, as well as supporter of criminal acts?
    Are you so partisan that you agree with whatever talking points your bosses give you? Are you as politically smart as Hudak?

    • Having read the section on charities NOWHERE does it say “allows Revenue Canada to revoke charitable status if the chair of the charity does something the conservatives don’t like”. Likewise I am truely astonished that you refer to Fruitfly Dave as “someone who controlled or managed a charity or association during a period in which the charity was engaged in conduct that constituted a serious breach of the requirements for registration for which its registration was revoked in the past five years”. Seriously???????????? The Fruitfly SuziQ Foundation had their registration “revoked in the past five years”????? The fact that enviro”charities” have been breaking the law for years doesn’t excuse them. The 5 year term is to punish repeat offenders (or enviro-advocates as you would know them). Hey!!!! Here’s a solution!!!! Don’t hire charity tax frauds!!!! Problem fixed!!!

      Sadly you are reduced to telling bare faced lies.

      Despite your bleating the legislation says NOTHING about “scientific research”. It concerns tax cheats only. It inhibits NO ONE from speaking out… even if they are cheating on their taxes!!!! Advocacy is advocacy, not charity. Ask the Fruitflys 15 staff lobbyists lawyers… they’ll tell you.

      Now you and your Greenlibdipp friends go back to stealing from the mouths of widows and orphans.

      • Nice try.
        I quoted the changes made by bill C38, which will allow Revenue Canada to remove charitable status if the chair is deemed to have conduct that is now described as partisan. Where Suzuki has been reporting on climate change issues with the tar sands for decades, reporting on this scientific matter is now called ‘partisan’. It used to be that reporting scientific results was called science, but now if it doesn’t agree with Harper’s fossil fuel funders, its called partisan. That’s new.
        Also new is the ability for Revenue Canada to remove charitable status if they deem the chair to have acted in partisan ways.

        This bill will allow Harper to remove the Suzuki foundations charitable status for work its done for decades, because it disagrees with Harper.

        Couching it in language that pretends its a taxation issue doesn’t hide the target or changes.

      • From your very quote G… “may have their registration refused or revoked, or be suspended from issuing official donation receipts, if an “ineligible individual” acts as a member”. What is an “ineligible individual”? “An “ineligible individual” is someone who controlled or managed a charity or association during a period in which the charity was engaged in conduct that constituted a serious breach of the requirements for registration for which its registration was revoked in the past five years;”

        “revoked in the past five years;”. Diamond Daves charity status has NOT been revoked in the last 5 years therefore this doesn’t apply. “Partisan” doesn’t appear in the legislation, nor does the word “science”.

        Sadly you are reduced to telling bare faced lies.

        Par for the course.

        Now you and your Greenlibdipp friends go back to stealing from the mouths of widows and orphans.

      • You are wrong, redintheface.

        This quote:
        An “ineligible individual” is someone who
        controlled or managed a charity or association during a period in which the charity was engaged in conduct that constituted a serious breach of the requirements for registration for which its registration was revoked in the past five years;

        Is a catch 22 phrase to allow them to call some action ‘a serious breach’ and revoke status when taken in context of two other requirements:

        In order to maintain their status under the Income Tax Act, charities must comply with basic requirements on:
        Engaging in allowable activities

        Now that the goalposts have been moved and reporting on environmental reports that disagree with Harper policy is now not an allowable action, its becomes a plan to de-register charities they don’t like.

        And here’s the statement from your overlord that clarifies the point:
        “If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers money and we’ll look to eliminate it.”

        And then consider the muzzle on scientists, parks workers, the cuts to the round table and cuts to arts organizations like summerworks and you see its a policy in action.

        I’ll end with one final quote from hair in the fridge:

        “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”
        Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 18, 2005

      • Again G more bare faced lies. You seem to be disfunctional in your ability to see or understand the legal requirement of the phrase “for which its registration was revoked in the past five years”. If this condition isn’t met the law does not apply. Unequivocally. To imply that Fruitfly Dave or his Foundation HAVE had their license revoked in the last 5 years is a bare faced lie. Neither meet the criteria of the law. This is undisputable. Clearly there is no “catch 22”. That Fruitfly broke the law and didn’t get caught, well, sometimes the bad guys win.

        Lie number 2. Your quote has NOTHING to do with charities. You clearly edited out what was being talked about which was GOVERNMENT FUNDING. Here is the entire quote…
        “Asked about his environmental critics getting government funding, he replied, more generally: “If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers money and we’ll look to eliminate it.”

        To say it was about charitable status is an absolute and unmitigated lie. It does, however, relate to your third point… the trimming of government waste. Two words… European Union. Is that really how you want our nation to be? They’re begging us for money to pay their debts. Who runs Greece this month? That’s a serious and realistic question. This financial collapse was made exponentially worse because of the exact policies you advocate for.

        Tax receipts are not dissent. Anyone can still speak up, they just can’t cheat on their taxes tho’.

      • No bald faced lies there, redintheface.
        What I’m doing is connecting the dots to establish that Harper’s policy of stifling dissent is what is driving all these actions, not a sudden need for tax changes on charities.

        The five year clause is immaterial to the argument, you can keep repeating it, but its not the point. The point is that Harper has changed the goal lines to make it so that dissent from the Harper line is now considered partisan activities. Suzuki’s direction of work has not changed in many decades, what has changed is Harper deciding that its not allowable as a charity. No previous government has ever raised the issue. The tax law changes are all part of a plan to retroactively declare Suzuki’s work to break tax laws, declare him an ‘ineligible individual’ and stifle his voice.

        You can keep repeating the five year business, I won’t respond anymore since its not the point.

        Harper has shown himself to be more dictatorial then any previous leader of this country, his cheating of the election, support of liars, support of fraud, support of forgers and criminals will be his undoing.

        Your refusal to admit to any wrongdoing when its made obvious shows you to an amoral partisan hack, typical of his employees.

        His own words show what is wrong with him, and your own words show you to be a hypocrite of the worst order.

        I quote:
        Anyone can still speak up, they just can’t cheat on their taxes tho’.

        And yet you continue to defend Dean Del Mastro, who has cheated on his taxes, his electoral funding, used forged documents and ensnared his own cousin into fraud.

        You sir, are a hypocrite.

      • LiarG… tax laws (or dissent as you call it) are longstanding and apply to all charities equally. The 5 year clause, that you yourself brought up, that you claim is ‘targeting’ SuziQ isn’t immaterial, in fact it shows that the law clearly is not applicable to his case. Only a fool would see otherwise. Now in order to save face you bring up (in your opinion ONLY) “a plan to retroactively declare Suzuki’s work to break tax laws”. Where, outside of your figmentory imagination, do you find the legal clause declaring the law retroactive??????? Oh yeah, in your connect-the-dot colouring book.

        Again, what the Fruitfly works on is his business. Even I don’t care what it is. He can complain, protest, study and advocate on anything till his hearts content. He just can’t commit tax fraud as a ‘charity’.

        I guess the simple fact the Diamond Diva Dave isn’t part of his own foundation ie. not a director or controller, therefore not a “ineligible individual” is lost on you also.

        Your comment is a classic case of “deflection”… tax fraud becomes ‘dissent’, if only for your own convenience. You even manage to throw in my “continue(ance) to defend Dean Del Mastro” despite the fact I have never commented on him and really know nothing about the case. But what the hell, reality has no bearing on your arguement anyway.

        PS… gotta’ say that bare faced lie using the Globe and Mail quote was a doozy!!!! ( If it wasn’t a lie then you have absolutely NO understanding of your own quote… I prefer to think of you as a liar not a moron, then again I may be wrong! ;) ) And your ability to rip off the author Gerald Caplans’ talking points (without understanding a single one) shows nothing but your intelectual shallowness.

      • If it were really a question of taxes, why isn’t the law equally enacted on the Fraser Institute, from wiki:

        As a registered charity with the Canada Revenue Agency, the Institute files annual registered charity information returns. In 2010, the Institute reported having $4.5 million CAD in assets and $10.8 million in annual revenue.[13]
        The Institute does not accept government grants or payments for research, but depends on contributions from individuals, organizations, and foundations.[14] As the institute is a registered charity, individual donors may claim tax credits for donations, and corporate donors may claim tax deductions.
        According to journalist Murray Dobbin, 31% of the Fraser Institute’s revenue come from corporations and 57% from “business-oriented charitable foundations” such as the right-wing Donner Foundation and the free-market-oriented John Dobson Foundation.[15] In addition, a report stated that Fraser Institute received $120 000 in funding from ExxonMobil.[16] During 2008-2010, the US-based Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, both under the control of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, provided a total of US$500,000 to the Fraser Institute.[17][18]

        There’s way more US money coming from them, and way more ‘partisan’ research that counts as partisan political activity. Why isn’t Harper targeting them as well? Is that only because he agrees with their ‘research’?

        And if its about tax law, why are you ignoring Dean Del Mastro and his electoral and tax fraud? That is a way more serious offence, yet you keep supporting him?

        No, its only because you are a hypocrite who is trying to hide a policy of stifling dissent through calling it tax law. That is the only reasonable result when we look at your hypocritical calls for actions on only those who disagree with your overlord.

      • Awful thin skin Saski. Why is it that leftists call call people anything they want here yet the ‘rules’ are different for everyone else?

        That is hypocrisy. Or two-faced, if you will.

        Then again, special rules for special people. It’s the Greenlibdipp way.

      • Prevaricator G. Perhaps the reason for the Fraser Institute not being affected by the law is because they obey the law. Yet again, funding is not the issue… advocacy is. How difficult is this for you to understand? You seem to be completely baffled.




        There are limits to advocacy spending for a charity. Limits that Diamond Dave and Forest Gump Unethics routinely break and that the Fraser Institute doesn’t. Perhaps the Fraser Institute doesn’t have 15 paid lobbyist lawyers on staff… unlike SuziQ.

        Tossing in Exxon, Koch and Dean Del Mastro talking points has NOTHING to do with this simple fact…. just more desperate “deflection”.

        PS. The fruitfly’s US money runs to around $33,000,000 over the last decade based on US income tax returns. Over 50 times the money you’ve claimed taints the Fraser Institute.

      • What do you call tax freedom day? Its advocating for less taxes, as just about everything they do does. What about their support of the tobacco industry, with false science conferences? Advocacy.

        Its not about advocacy, its about what they say.

        Advocating for less taxes just fits the Harper narrative (since they have the same backers, its not surprising).

        If you call what Suzuki does advocacy, then you have to call the Fraser institutes work advocacy as well. If one is subject to tax law then both should be, if one is subject to inspection on foreign funding, both should be.

        If you’re concerned about tax law, why haven’t you called out for Dean Del Mastro to resign and be tried in court?

        Its because you are a hypocritical partisan hack.

      • Dissimulator G… as long as less than 10% of their budget is used for advocacy everything is all legal and above board. Fruitfly and Forest Unethics break the law. They’ve been called on it and have to change their ways. I don’t remember the Fraser Institute shilling for an Ontario political party like the Fruitfly did for the Lieberals. THAT breaks the law. Clearly and indisputably. The law is explicit about this… NO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING is allowed by charities.

        The Fraser Institute, Diva Suzuki and Forest Unethics are all subject to the SAME tax laws and the SAME foreign funding inspection. Seriously, what is it about this that confuses you? You seem to be most vacant about it.

        I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what advocacy is in terms of the Canadian Income Tax Act… mighty “Dunning-Kruger” (sp?) of you! Har har!!!

        I know nothing about Dean Del Mastro so your “deflection” is a complete waste of time.

      • Sorry, redintheface, but its you who should be called ‘dissimulator’.

        Why is Suzuki’s work now called advocacy, yet hadn’t been called that in the previous decade?

        Why is the Fraser Institute’s work not called advocacy?

        Why do you call out Suzuki for tax problems, yet ignore Del Mastro’s much more serious crimes?

        Why did Harper try to silence Parks workers?
        Why does Harper not allow scientists to speak freely?
        Why did Harper cut funding to Summerworks?

        Why did Harper say:
        “If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers money and we’ll look to eliminate it.”

        Its all the same plan.
        Stifling dissent.

  4. I’m sorry .. I thought someone here might try to defend or explain John Baird’s complete memory blank/about face that involves defending or rationalizing Stephen the great environmentalist Harper’s about face about forever ferociously defending Great Bear Rain Forest.. (ok .. ‘maybe’ forever !) This Baird dude just flits from portfolio to portfolio, hell he could be Mr Defense tomorrow.. just to flesh out his resume.. & clean up the Mackay/Fantino decay

    Somehow it seems at least one jailhouse lawyer & perhaps more are holding forth rhetorically (full broadsides) in Saskboy’s polite n democratic n nondiscriminatory turf on the subject of charitable donations.. which we know absolutely disgusts Stephen Harper.. truly enrages Joe Oiliver and completely confounds the aforesaid John Baird.. probably because only radicals or haida elders would stoop to such un-christian un-ethical or clearly heathen behavior

    What Peter Kemp or Keith Ashfield think about such charitable or uncharitable acts (or if in fact they can think) may forever remain a mystery. Tides, poisoning wolves, farmed salmon, dark and scary forests, charity etc are WAY above their heads.. so they’re lucky to have John (Scary Bear Baird) and Stephen and oily Bay Street Joe look after the nasty details of rounding up nature, environment, habitat and resources and setting the price on the open market or in China..

    The workarounds of charities and ‘think tanks’ (there’s a good one, Mr Manning) and policy/economissed wonk/agencies.. and good ol pork barrel lobbyists can be argued till the cows come home and let us know its milking time.. So why are y’all worried bout the spread sheets.. ? I’m more worried about Vegas and the point spread of the damned Economy vs The Environment… is it a converted touchdown and a field goal ?

    I’m actually hoping Clayton Ruby or some of his brilliant young advocates takes us to the scene of the crime, places the perps in situ and resolves & defines their motives so even Peter Mackay or Del Mastro could understand. The Council of Canadians could do the same in about 11 electoral instances..

    Poilivier will take more effort .. he’s cut from the same strange cloth Harper’s cut from.. Clement and Fantino are beyond the beyond… so don’t even bother trying to explain it to them.. In ten years ‘speaker’ Scheer will no longer be radioactive politically or asleep at the morality wheel.. and like Stephen Lecce he’ll understand he was roped n rode, like a Stampede Steer and will write a book about the misadventure.. and saddle sores.. and the whipping.

    Get ready to be violently fracked upside down and sideways
    and from behind.. Alberta.. and Canada
    The tar sands, pipes n tankers are just the hors d’oeuvres

    y yu .. you aint see nothin yet

    and it was promised that you wouldn’t recognize it anyway ….

    when he was through with it …

    • Always an entertaining, and thought provoking read. Sometimes I’m not quite sure what you’ve said, but it’s a little bit musical so I don’t mind too much.

      • .. ‘a little bit musical’… for that compliment alone, I would walk or hitchhike across Canada twice ..

        Props to the red Jeffling, and the mighty Thwhap for the opines and views.. and to you for hosting them with such freedom and grace … as well as the cogent Dzap… it can’t be easy to field all the screaming foul balls or home runs.. but you do it so well.. in an exemplary and cool way

        I will keep observing … .. I always like to see a a fair playing field.. I hope I’m among the first to cry out when its no so ..

      • Hi Diamond. Perhaps you would feel otherwise about “to you (saski) for hosting them with such freedom and grace” if you knew how many of my comments are edited, held in moderation for weeks or outright censored. Even tho’ these very comments are referenced with citations.

        Such is gatekeeping.

  5. Fabulist G… for the last time… the Fruitfly’s work has NOTHING to do with his foundations tax status. Are you so deluded to think that Diamond Diva Dave actually does the ‘science’ himself??? His foundation is carrying on the work they did before, nothing has changed… except his advocacy stipend from the SuziQ Foundation is gone. Now that they don’t pay him they are within the 10% advocacy limit and he can freely talk about ANYTHING he wants. NO restrictions. NO limits.

    SuziQ’s ‘work’ is called advocacy because what he is paid to do IS advocacy, NOT science… he doesn’t do science anymore. He advocates, and is paid well to do it. As does his 15 PAID lobbyists on staff who lobby for government policy. Get it? Lobbyists?? Lobbyists of government??? The Fraser Institute doesn’t lobby. Their information collected is presented for anyone to use. If OTHERS want to use it as a lobbying tool they are FREE to do so. They themselves don’t lobby.

    Now do you get it? Neither the Fruitfly’s nor the Frasers work is called advocacy… THAT’S the ‘strawman’ enviro”charities” promote. You fell for it. What can I say?

    As for the rest of your “deflection” points they have nothing to do with this topic. In a “Dunning-Kruger”(sp?) kinda’ way!!!

    PS… the context of your Harper quote, again, is about GOVERNMENT SPENDING, not charities. It was said to the French Prime Minister as advice to reign in European government debt… SAGE advice.

    • redjeff,

      You said:

      “I don’t remember the Fraser Institute shilling for an Ontario political party like the Fruitfly did for the Lieberals. THAT breaks the law. Clearly and indisputably. The law is explicit about this… NO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING is allowed by charities.”

      I like it when you keep calling him the Fruitfly. It’s a reminder of his famous scientific career. And, it’s a testimony to how cretinous you people are.

      I note link after link of Ethical Oil and other right-wing hacks calling for the DSF to be investigated by CRA for the McGuinty thing. Can you tell us whatever happened with that investigation?

    • First off, the Suzuki Foundation also is not government supported, their funding is similar to the Fraser, except while the Fraser is largely supported by corporations and rich, right wing people like the $500k from the Koch brothers, Suzuki has 3/4 of his funding coming from people who donate less then $500. Suzuki is more people funded, the Fraser more rich people funded.

      Second, the Fraser regularly issues report cards on government performance that have the same target act as Suzuki reports, informing people on a person/party’s performance on a select set of issues. While Suzuki reports only on environmental issues, the Fraser reports on government progress on right wing agenda items like increasing the divide between rich and poor through taxation policies.

      If one is advocacy, both are.

      And the Harper quote is about quelling dissent.

      • Perjurer G… Diva Dave employs 15 paid lobbyists. That financial level makes it advocacy. No amount of your bloviating will change that. List all the similarities you want it’s the differences that make them different.

        PS… Fabricator G’s full and unedited Harper quote on ‘dissent’… “Asked about his environmental critics getting government funding, he replied, more generally: “If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers money and we’ll look to eliminate it.” Ooooooohhhhh looks like it was about government funding, not dissent or charities after all.

        PSS… Here is some of the Fruitfly’s funding you don’t mention:
        (US grants to the Fruitfly foundation) “The average value of these 30 U.S. grants (made in 34 disbursements) is US$267,000. The total value of the top 30 U.S. grants alone is US$9-million, equivalent to $13-million. This included US$1.8-million from the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation (“Hewlett”), US$1.5-million from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation (“Packard”), US$1.7-million from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation (“Moore”), US$1-million from the Wilburforce Foundation, US$955,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, US$930,000 from the Seattle-based Bullitt Foundation and at least US$181,000 from the Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts.” opinion.financialpost.com/2012/04/19/vivian-krause-suzukis-funding/

      • The Conservative government took millions in donations from the foreign charities they now decry. And Redjeff had no response to Baird’s hypocritical support for Tides a few short years ago, other than to try and demonize a great Canadian hero, David Suzuki, while also demonizing science. Redjefff is so consistently negative, he’s positively sticky.

      • Baird response? How’s this? In 2006 you think someone is a great guy. In 2010 you find out he steals from widows and orphans. In 2012 you consider him:

        a) still a great guy because he steals from people you don’t like
        b) a bad guy

        I and every fair minded Canadian would pick ‘b’. Obviously Saski would pick ‘a’.

        Maybe the 15 paid lobbyist lawyers just did a good job… on some people.

      • This redjeff character is one of the most obnoxious trolls I’ve ever met. He guffaws like a donkey if his opponent doesn’t dot every i and cross every t, as if their point is now discredited forever.

        But then the gutless, lying fuck makes up all sorts of stupid shit, like about how David Suzuki’s actions as a private individual somehow make the David Suzuki Foundation (of which he was not on the governing board, nor a paid employee) guilty of violating the tax laws.

        When asked to substantiate his obvious fabrications, he retreats into dismal, sullen, cowardly silence, hoping the storm will pass.

        I’ve long since decided that these right-wing hacks are lying bullshit artists. That’s why I ban them. I don’t need their continued puking to prove that they’re still stupid, lying, braying fuckwads.

      • Thwap, your assessment is correct. I’d have deleted RedJefff’s libelous comments about Suzuki and GZap, but Suzuki has faced worse trash in his day, and GZap has stated he wants RedJefff’s BS on the record so people can plainly see what a total lying troll he is.

      • Oh, redintheface, you mean like Dean Del Mastro. Now there’s someone we’ve found guilty of crimes. Of course, you support him, because his crimes are for the greater good in the drive to support the Koch Brothers and the 1%.

        He’s been doing the same thing for decades, the only thing different is that now science has been declared ant-Harper and is now partisan to advocate for science.

        Try again.

  6. Off topic, but my blogs’ top commenters all appear in this “discussion”. Do you see why I’ve limited Redjefff to one reply per post or comment put to him? He makes everything about himself, then David Suzuki who he libels, then usually goes after Al Gore next. I’m surprised I had to bring up Gore for him this time. Meanwhile, he thinks this all distracts from Baird’s and Harper’s two faced nature, and feeble lip service to environmental protection.

    redjefff 286
    saskboy 260
    thwap 71
    gzap 67

    • It’s amazing how a post on hypocrisy and 2 faceishness shows such hypocrisy and 2 faceishness in the comments!!! :) While decrying the stiffling of dissent there seems no objection from the same voices to stiffle others.

      “libelous comments about Suzuki (and) David Suzuki who he libels” are in fact direct quotes from newspapers or Suzuki’s own (legally required) Foundation publications. His 15 paid lobbyists are on public record and filed as such in the lobbying registry. Again a simple and verifiable fact. It does, however, allow you to self-justify “I’d have deleted RedJefff’s libelous comments about Suzuki” and in addition everything else in the comment. Then again, libel be damned “GZap has stated he wants RedJefff’s BS on the record”. Special rules for special people.

      Further the fuller quote is “I’d have deleted RedJefff’s libelous comments about Suzuki and GZap…” where I call G a liar. The admonishment(?) “RedJefff, no more referring to gzap as a “liar”. Not only is it too hypocritical for you to claim that, it’s also wrong.”, and now it’s libelous!!! Yet at the very same time, in your very own words “RedJefff’s… what a total lying troll he is.”. Wait a second, I thought libel was…… :) ! Oh yeah! Special rules for special people… and a self-justication of comment deletion.

      Meanwhile sexually graphic characters and Thwap’s, how shall we say it, colourful language is all perfectly fine. Aside: this is the only blog I know that allows swearing. By anyone. Hmmmmmm, which face would that be showing?

      Even tho’ you limit dissent, the opposition, and decry it, you readily admit “I’ve limited Redjefff to one reply per post or comment put to him…” and at “redjefff 286 (comments)” that must be an awful lot of comments put to me. Despite the simple fact I’ve repeatedly refused to answer personal questions from both yourself and G, other than to say I’m not being paid by anyone, you claim “He makes everything about himself”. It must burn you up inside that I don’t reveal this to you!

      In addition, bringing up Al Gore while saying “I’m surprised I had to bring up Gore for him…” is what is called “projection”. Where you act in the way you accuse others of acting. It’s also hypocrisy.

      Have a happy!! ;)

      • redintheface, you are a troll.
        The questions you refuse to answer to are numerous:

        Why Suzuki is now called an advocate, when his work hasn’t changed for decades.

        Why you declare Suzuki’s issues are tax issues, but refuse to call out Dean Del Mastro, who clearly is guilty of tax issues and election fraud.

        Why you accept the work of the Fraser institute, which has no need of lobbyists, since they are considered a source for the kind of fudged numbers Harper needs but don’t accept Suzuki’s work.

        Why trumpeting the work of scientists is now called partisan, when no previous government has called it such.

        Why stifling dissent is acceptable in Parks workers, scientists and artists, yet you claim censorship when you repeat talking points, insult and refuse to answer even the simplest question.

        Whether you are a paid worker of any level of the conservative party.

        Why you support election fraud through robocalling and other methods.

        Why its ok for the Fraser institute to be funded by right wing 1%’s, Koch brothers, but its not ok for Suzuki to accept any corporate or American money.

        Instead of answering any of these questions you keep repeating the same, irrelevant talking points. You do not argue or discuss issues, you use the same method of non-answering and deflection common to conservative party MP’s. Have you got a copy of the conservative manual on how to derail committee work by your bed?

        Take a look at your post above.
        Its one long rant and set of insults based off of one talking point:
        That Suzuki has 15 paid lobbyists.

        If you are concerned about lobbying, take a look at this paper:

        Search under ‘environment’, it comes up with 22 references. Suzuki is not one of them, in fact all 22 are industry groups, gas, oil, mining….
        The work of Suzuki’s 15 lobbyists pales in comparison to the work of any one of those groups, and pales in the comparison to the influence of the Fraser Institute. Complaining about Suzuki’s measly 15 lobbyists while not discussing any of these other lobbyists is disingenuous at best.

        Obviously, the work of the Suzuki Foundation is not influencing this government, yet they want it shut down. Using tax law rules they won’t apply evenly is at present the only way they can try to shut it down without making their true goal of quelling dissent public. The previously used Harper quote is the first time a Prime Minister of this country has publicly stated that he won’t allow public money to support any other then his view, which is as anti-democratic statement as any PM has ever made in this country. Not surprising coming from a party that was elected through fraud.

        You are a troll, sir.
        The only way you could prove otherwise is to actually try to answer all of the above questions honestly, with thought and with research. But you won’t do that, you’ll just call me a hypocrite or liar or go back to repeating talking points about irrelevant points like the number of lobbyists.
        Go ahead, show us what kind of person you really are.

      • Hahahahahahahahaha!

        Nothing about how YOU yourself are a fabricator who retreats into cowardly silence when you’re exposed, after you’ve spent days calling other people liars and conspiracy theorists.

        Just some whining about how I’ve got a potty mouth.

        What a contemptible creature you are.

      • There’s ignorance and then there’s willfull ignorance. Storyteller G you are obviously the latter. The work the SuziQ Foundation does is NOT advocacy, so when you say, through “deflection”, “Why Suzuki is now called an advocate, when his work hasn’t changed…” you miss the entire point. His advocacy is called advocacy as defined by the Canadian tax code. As for Del Mastro, he’s NOT a charity, again “deflection”. I don’t consider the Fraser Institute a charity either… that, however, is my opinion… not the law. Who the lobbyists in Ottawa are is no never mind to me… as long as they’re designated lobbyists. Which the Diva Dave Foundation isn’t, now that Diamond Dave is gone.

        The (very) simple fact that the Fruitfly and Forest Unethics Part 1, under Clayton Ruby, (groups proud of ‘sticking it to the man’) gave up without a fight should have been your first clue.

        Whether Honda Suzuki’s 15 paid lobbyists pale or not doesn’t negate the fact that his 15 paid lobbyists exceed tax law.

        Finally “public money” isn’t the same as public tax money. The rest of your comment is gibberish.

      • Holy moving goalposts.
        The work the SuziQ Foundation does is NOT advocacy,

        Then why do you care whether they have 15 paid lobbyists or not?

        and redintheface:
        His [Suzuki} advocacy is called advocacy as defined by the Canadian tax code.

        In other words, your problem with the Suzuki foundation is only that Suzuki expresses his own personal opinion outside of the foundation. So now that he’s resigned from the foundation, why do you care at all?

        As for the rest, you are a troll.
        You refused to answer all questions and went back to talking points again, showing that you are not here to debate, only to recite conservative talking points.

        Now, I disagree with censorship in honest debate. I do not disagree with censorship of trolls, and even more so when all evidence points to the troll being a paid hack of fraudsters. But since you refuse to actually debate any issues, you are not worth responding to.

        I hereby have put you on personal ignore, and suggest that Saskboy ban you from the cite.

        Censorship of debate is bad.
        Banning paid hack trolls is good.

    • Hi ‘Sally’. No you don’t have my point clear. Real charities work within the limits, as proscribed by law, of how much advocacy is legally allowed. Specifically “Under rules set out by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), charities must devote substantially all of their resources to their charitable purposes and activities. They can only use 10% of their resources for allowable political activities (non-partisan) that further their charitable purpose.” http://www.calgarycvo.org/our-work/policy-issues/federal-government/advocacy-rules-charities

      As such the Salvation Army is perfectly within the rules to promote advocacy work as long as they restrict their spending to 10% of their revenue. Which they do.

      This in no way means that they aren’t allowed to do ANY advocacy work. They are restricted to 10% of their revenue.

      I may be a “hypocrite (and) an ignorant blowhard”, as you say, which makes it important to do just as you advise… “thinking before you speak, and listening before you think”. It does also mean however that you take your own advice.

      “it will change your life for the better”.

      PS… I am curious, why would a leftist, someone who speaks for the marginalized and overlooked, being such bastions of tolerance and understanding that leftists are, have so much problem with the Sally Ann promoting “the major goals of the Salvation Army’s International Social Justice Commission is to ‘raise strategic voices to advocate with the world’s poor and oppressed’”??? (from your citation).

      • thwap, I checked out a post of yours elsewhere (the thwap name travels, doesn’t it?). You had a good call on trolls there.

        Getting back on topic, it has been pointed out that the cons are finding hypocrisy with their own appointments. Kevin Page was a con appointment, but now he’s a fly in the ointment. Ditto Maynard, who has now ‘retired’, though hopefully that won’t stop investigations into law breaking.

        Speaking of which, the council of canadians are taking the cons to court in the first phase tomorrow. Good luck to them.

  7. gzap says:
    June 23, 2012 at 7:41 am

    Why you declare Suzuki’s issues are tax issues, but refuse to call out Dean Del Mastro, who clearly is guilty of tax issues and election fraud.

    (speaking of “libelous”…wow…pray that his lawyers don’t find this little gem on *your* blog…)

    Loving how you guys pile onto Redjeff en masse and try to overwhelm him by sheer numbers (and mindless repetition). In other places, that’s called bullying…but around here, I can’t say that I really blame you. One on one, he’d reduce you to tears in no time. Take Thwap’s advice: ban him before he *really* embarrasses you…:)

    Oh, and Saskboy? This thread, and your reactions to it, just adds more and more ammunition for your political opponents to use against you. A simple business card with a few of your more outrageous quotes and your blog address, handed out at any candidates meetings, and your new ‘career’ is over before it even starts. You know how people are judged by the company they keep, right? Is ‘Thwap’ the kind of guy (girl?) you’ll proudly present to your potential supporters as “a great friend” and “the future of the Party”? Don’t say I didn’t try to warn you.

    • Fred from BC, I don’t keep company with you, and you’re the sort of unsavoury troll who people would mind me spending time with. No point in “warning” me about anything, my good reputation can take care of itself. It is amusing to see you desperate to portray me in a negative light though, since you have no facts with which to do that; typical Conservative smear-style.

      How about you print up some of those business cards and give me that free publicity though? Not that I’m authorizing it or anything, but it’d be a good laugh to see someone waste money on attack ads over *me*.

      • “my good reputation can take care of itself” if only within the echo-chamber you live in. Your reputation is what OTHERS hold of you, not yourself. What you, saski, fail to realise is that you have to endear yourself to others, the voting public, and no amount of censorship AND revisionist view will change this. As a result you will only ever cater to the 17% in Saskatchewan that still identify themselves with the Quebec Democratic Party. 17% will not get you elected.

        Sad but liberal arts math true.

    • Thank you Fred. I ascribe to the misquote of Edmund Burke ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’. As an immigrant, eternally gratefull to the kindness and generosity of Canadians and their Nation, it kills me to watch as Quislings attempt to destroy it from within. If they can’t appreciate the wonder that they have been born into, I sure as Hell can.

      I refuse to sit idly by as those that can, try to ruin the greatness that is Canada.

      My advice is that if those who don’t like what they have don’t want it, feel free to move to where you will be happier. My family did.

      PS Fred, more apt to your comment, another of Burke’s observations would be “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

      We will not fall.

      • Trolls are out again.
        Must be more bad news for the conservatives.

        Oh, what’s that? Copies of checks and notices that people will testify against Del Mastro and his cousin for leniency from Elections Canada and the RCMP?

        Cue the deflections….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s