Sunday, February 20, 2011

It Takes A Woman....

To put things into prospective. I have read all the media "unbiased" reporters on this issue, but NONE have stated the issue, or lack thereof as well as this blogger, and she's a Liberal to boot!

I worked as a Ministerial aide for a few years, and even as a card-carrying Liberal, I cannot condemn the Minister for disagreeing with her public service advisors. Here’s why:

1. The “government” is Cabinet, made of of Ministers of the Crown. The public service, despite what the population thinks most of the time, is NOT the government.
2. Public service, or “ministry” bureaucrats, provide ministers with recommendations and analysis of options, but their long-term priorities (remember, governments come and go, the public service is forever) do not necessarily match the government-of-the-day’s priorities. What has happened to Min. Oda is a reflection of that.
3. Ministers also look at all decisions they have to make through a political lens. You might not like that lens, but they are the government and if you don’t like it enough, you cast your vote for the opposition in the next election.

Read the whole blog post, and leave her a positive comment. This is an excellent post, and states the facts without being partisan.

As a woman, I am upset about the whole Oda issue because all I see is a female parliamentarian being attacked for nothing. It has gone beyond the actual issue and has become a feeding frenzy by the opposition and the media. The use of the picture of Bev Oda standing outside and smoking was the final straw. To read comments about her wearing those sunglasses when she had to because of her eye surgery, showed me the worse in people.

The losers in this whole episode are those who viciously attacked an elected Minister of our country. Just because you have immunity to say anything you want in the "House", does not mean that you don't have to think about the person you are attacking. It makes you look like a$$holes for doing so. Bev Oda, is a person, with all the feelings you have, and to be verbally attacked in Parliament and by the media must be devastating for her. You won't even let her escape to have a smoke in private.

Not only do I expect the members of Parliament who have been attacking Minister Oda to apologize, I expect the media to apologize as well. The opposition has the job of opposing policies, it does not have the right to verbally assault anyone. It is juvenile and makes you look like weak little tyrants.

No wonder the female vote is shifting to the Conservatives. Maybe they feel safer with the Conservatives because they are supportive of families and not known to attack female MP's. The other parties seem to think it is okay to make stuff up and then hound a female member of Parliament. Minister Oda, and all the other Conservatives females should start wearing T-shirts with targets on them during question period.

It feels like the media is making this a game. A game of let's see how much power we have to influence voters, let's see if we can make the Conservative polling numbers plummet. This is not a game, Bev Oda is a person. As a female all I see is a female under attack by old white guys. Why is sexism still okay?

h/t MaryT


CanadianSense said...

I remember the attacks on Christians, family values that did not fit the "progressive agenda".

If a female does not share the same progressive agenda from the radicals they are attacked.

The MSM has decided it is open season on Conservative women that don't share the radical progressive agenda.

The_Iceman said...

I think a few Blogging Tories are going to owe Bev Oda an apology when this is all said and done. The opposition were demanding her resignation before we learned all the facts.

Southern Quebec said...

"I remember the attacks on Christians, family values that did not fit the "progressive agenda""

Non sequitur!!! Bev was lying to Parliament.

Hunter: Ya think the cigarette dangling out of the side of her mouth is attractive? Seriously...

Anonymous said...

All Oda had to do, back in 2009, was to send the document back unsigned - with a memo to the effect there would be no funding. Surely she had the resources to send a memo. Apparently NOT.

Huntsy forgets how kind she's been to female parliamentarians in the past


Anonymous said...

"To put things into prospective."

You DO know what prospective means, right Huntsy?

"The losers in this whole episode are those who viciously attacked an elected Minister of our country."

And you surely MUST know the difference between a "vicious attack" and "criticism"?

Just to put things in perspective.

Anonymous said...

You should have asked Beverly Oda why sexism is still okay. Wasn't she the minister responsible for taking the word "equality" out of the mandate for the Status of Women in Canada?

bullpup said...

I feel so sorry for Minister Oda. The media have treated her terrible, they have acted no different than schoolyard bullies. Pictures of her were demeaning, Andrew Coyne sitting on his high horse convicting her of lying. It was wrong before the facts came out, it is wrong now. It's sad, really sad.

maryT said...

SQ and others still don't get it. She never signed that document, she did not put not in that document, she did not use that electric pen to put her name on that document. She was not in the country the day someone put her name on it.
Ever think she had refused to sign it, ordered it returned, and some staffer did it behind her back. Then that staffer made a copy of said document and put it away till he/she could cause trouble. Why would a magazine request it 2 years after the fact, unless it was received in a brown envelope, and in order to protect said staffer, made that FOI request.
If one doesn't believe a public servant could be so disloyal, pay attention to WI.
They have got away with so much for so many years they think they are important. They aren't.
Ever think said staffer was being demoted or fired and is trying to make nice with the opposition.
At least this person used an electric pen, in the states they use guns.
It was well known that she was against funding, so who prepared that document insinuating she was for it. When was it prepared. Why were date stamps used instead of handwritten dates.
Funding will not be given back to this leftist organization, and it could lead to more funds being denied to aid groups.
Bev was blindsided by this and did not lie, did not sign it and did not put in the NOT.
As for lying to parliament, did you support Hedy Fry when she told a huge lie about crosses burning as she spoke, or the lies Bennett spouted off re the H1N1 vaccine being available by only one supplier, when it was a liberal govt that signed that deal, for a huge donation kick back.
As for the cigarette, the original pic shown it was not lit. Who doctored it to show huge flumes of smoke coming out.
And it was Greg Weston himself that said on live TV that they get brown envelopes from the public service. Too bad they don't investigate where they come from and why they were sent. Maybe that is why he was fired, his boss didn't like that kind of reporting.

maryT said...

Everyone should go read the post and then read the comments, especially from Gabby in Que. She sheds some light on who might have started this.
And the author is a female single mum of a 15yr old. And most of the comments appear to be from women. I would take from that fact that the liberals have really lost the female vote, especially those that have families and non liberal values.
I would love to see the libs win about 3 seats next election, and lose party status. 5 years in the desert are what they need to grow up. Whould iggy stick around, if re-elected. Doubt it.

Southern Quebec said...

What happened to those "strong Conservative women" that Hunter is always promoting? Criticize one of them, and all of a sudden you are a sexist! Which brings up the question, "How does one criticize a CW without being considered a sexist?"

BTW On many previous occasions you have engaged in ad hominem attacks. Please explain the difference here...

Fay said...

A well written post. I am revolted by the bullying of the old white men in the National Press Gallery.
I support Bev Oda and agree that apologies are in order.
Every time the old boys club gets away with bullying ,Canada's reputation as polite and respectful is damaged. It is time to hold the National Press Gallery accountable.

maryT said...

Who watches women's curling. What is on this week. The Hearts Tournament, and guess what ads are running, a truth ad by the conservatives. Way to go.
And with the HofC on break, no chance for the opposition to do a pile on.
And unless Greg and pals get some brown envelopes, no faux scandal to over ride those positive ads.

wilson said...

mystereeoso says:
"Wasn't she the minister responsible for taking the word "equality" out of the mandate for the Status of Women in Canada?"


Minister Oda has COURAGEOULY cut many advocacy groups, including some in the SoW.
By my count, over 19 taxpayer teet sucking special interest groups got the axe.
Thankyou Bev Oda!

Our civil servants have been cutting cheques for these organizations for literally decades,
and no Minister DARED to over rule them.

That's why there is no place on CIDA memos to reject a request for funding.

maryT said...

This Week's Question
Should the Minister of International Co-operation, Bev Oda, resign from cabinet?
Yes 48%
No 52%
Get over to ctv and vote, something is funny re these results. A while ago it was 62% yes. And I voted twice with no problem.
QP is sure doing a pile on re Oda but McKay and Dewar are very careful with their language and refuse to use the word liar. Wonder is they have been talked to by some lawyer.

maryT said...

Wonder if Layton likes being referred to by Oliver as a cheap date.

Bec said...

wilson @ 11:08 am said
"That's why there is no place on CIDA memos to reject a request for funding."

Sooooo, only one decision was acceptable on these forms in that dept as well at the time? A 'Yes' or it became a "forged" "doctored" document? (according to the 'witch hunters)
An entire department that operated with forms that only allowed ONE response.....holy $h!T that is remarkable and very, very frightening.

Are there enough hills in Ottawa to climb down?

hunter said...

Here is the link to the poll that MaryT mentioned:

Good find Mary!

maryT said...

Talk about spending advertising dollars wisely. The conservatives are running a positive ad during the Scotties tournament of Hearts. Last year over a million watched the final of that, and I imagine that most of us watched a lot of the other games also. Wonder if they are running them during the Nascar race.

Orville said...

Liberal says Oda not physically present when "not" inserted but under her direction.

When Oda answered the question " who inserted the word NOT?" she said she didn't know who (name of the person) who did it and she was truthful with that answer.
If you read the following explanation, by a former Liberal ministerial aide and current Liberal party member, you will learn why her answer is consistent with the facts and circumstances.
She has also maintained from day one that it was her decision and direction to reject funding for Kairos, and most people including the President of CIDA, has without qualification stated to a parliamentary committee, it is the minister's right, prerogative, and duty to implement the will of the government.

Here is statement of former Liberal aide and current Liberal party member

"On the day the decision was finally made the Minister was away from her Ottawa office and was on the phone with her staff. Normally, that means all the staff (we had 12 in our office) are gathered around a table in conference call fashion. The Minister directed her staff to indicate that she disagreed with the public service and would not continue to fund KAIROS. One of those staffers (we don’t know which one) put “NOT” on the document because there was no place to disagree and then sign with the auto-pen. Standard stuff. We know there was an urgency about the decision, so sending it back to the public service to correct, and go through the process of getting signatures and dealing with some public service blowback, was not a reasonable option."

liberal supporter said...

Ok maryt, you seem to know all about this.

About the other two signatories to this document. Did either or both sign it with the "NOT" hand written on it? Or did either or both sign it before the "NOT" was hand written on it?

liberal supporter said...

Did the other two people sign the document before the "NOT" was added, or did they sign it after the "NOT" was added?

I hope it was a blogger problem that lost my previous comment.

maryT said...

There is only one hand written signature with a hand written date. Is that the person who put in the NOT and used the electric pen so sign the other 2 names and use a date stamp. Too bad they didn't realize she was not in town that day. Sloppy of them. No one uses an electric pen to sign their name and put a date stamp beside it. That pen is used by someone else signing for them.
But LS, you know as well as I do that Sarah did it.

liberal supporter said...

Did the other two people sign before the NOT was inserted, or did they not?
What is so difficult about answering this?
Before or after?

liberal supporter said...

Most interesting. Every comment I have made here today has disappeared.
As "hunter" is so fond of saying about herself, I must have struck a nerve!
It is most hilarious to read comments about "truth" ads, and see the reality of the "conservative light" hunter is climbing into reflected here.

So why is it too sensitive to ask? Why is it so politically incorrect to ask? Is there some other truth you are trying to avoid?

Were the other two signatures before or after the handwritten "NOT" was added?

liberal supporter said...

Most interesting. Every comment I have made here today has disappeared.
As "hunter" is so fond of saying about herself, I must have struck a nerve!
It is most hilarious to read comments about "truth" ads, and see the reality of the "conservative light" hunter is climbing into reflected here.

So why is it too sensitive to ask? Why is it so politically incorrect to ask? Is there some other truth you are trying to avoid?

Were the other two signatures before or after the handwritten "NOT" was added?

clazqp19 said...

maryT said...

Janke has a new post up with an interesting theory. What if he is right.

maryT said...

Poll: Conservative support gains momentum

Great news to wake up to.

hunter said...

Funny LS you got designated as SPAM by blogger, not my fault, I didn't delete your posts. I only checked my spam filter now, so it's not a conspiracy against you, blame blogger for thinking you are SPAM. HA!

Anonymous said...

Huntsy this is u = your dumbest bloggie thingy ever.

Everyone knows that when Gabbesse shows up to comment (ahoy!) it's really the robotic arm of the blogging tories faction of Stephen Harper's PMO. Getting nervous about that yet?

They've been profiling your personality and writing style so they can just set up moronic automated blogs everywhere without bothering to keep you in the loop about things, ie. how sorry to feel for Conservative Minister accused of impropriety AGAIN.

Orville said...

At the committee meeting in December, although Oda did not give the name of the staffer who wrote in the "not" on the document in answer to the question - Who inserted the word "not" ? - because she actually was not physically present, when it was done, and therefore was unable to identify by name. At the same time, her machine generated signature was placed on the document. Her testimony has always been that all was done under her direction and recommendation.
At that same December meeting, how could anyone have left the meeting confused, whether it was Oda who made the decision to deny recommendation for approval of the funds for Karios, when the President of CIDA told the committee it was the minister Oda who was responsible. How much clearer could Ms. Beggs be when she spoke the following words to committee members and the media in December.

“I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice. This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal,” she told the foreign affairs committee.”

For some members of the media and Liberal party to falsely claim that Oda changed her position in February will not stand up to scrutiny if her words in Hansard are examined where she stated

"I have repeatedly and clearly stated in response to questions in the House and at committee that the funding decision was mine. The “not” was inserted at my direction."

How could anyone conclude and write that Oda changed her story or worse yet accuse her of lying? I think some opposition members and media should make a retraction and genuine apology to Ms. Oda, because there is no valid reason for them to be confused, to the extent that they demanded her resignation, and cause her all this anguish.
Fortunately Prime Minister Harper had the good sense to stand behind his persecuted minister, and not let the opposition destroy another female member of his cabinet, with unfounded charges.