Sunday, September 7, 2014

Anti-Harper Petition an Exercise in Intellectual Cowardice

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and the far-left desn't like it.

Front and centre in the increasingly-public spectacle of the far-left losing their minds over it is a petition started by Calgarian Liberal hack Ed Tanas. Tanas was so outraged by the nomination, by Frank Dimant of B'Nai Brith, that he was driven to anti-Semitic comments.

I've spent some time slowly peeling back the layers of Tanas' mania at High Noon. He's not an individual bursting with credibility. So not much has to be said about he himself here.

But I will speak at further length about his petition, and just how, frankly, cowardly an effort it really is.

As explored masterfully by the Calgary Herald's Susan Martinuk, almost none of the 20,00 unhinged signatories have produced even a single valid reason why Harper's nomination should be denied:

"The real drivers behind any support for the petition can easily be detected in the comments made by its supporters. Most are a nebulous collection of hateful phrases that have no facts or logic to support their claims. According to them, Harper has 'committed crimes against Canadians' and has 'beady eyes.' He is also 'a disgrace to mankind,' 'a warmonger,' 'evil' 'an oppressor,' 'a fascist' and a 'social monster' who should be charged with 'treason.'

Frankly, these people should spend a year or two living under the rule of a Third World dictator. Maybe then they can comprehend the real meaning of such words.

Comments that state reasons (still not facts or statistics) invariably focus on Harper’s unwavering support for Israel, the 'evil, mass-murderer that kills innocent children.' A few others mention unexplained reasons such as aboriginal policies and dismantling Canada’s health-care system."

So more or less all of it is generic left-wing rhetoric, and absolutely none of it is true,... save that Harper does, in fact, support Israel. Although what the signatories say about Israel is false. Which makes that a wash.

Now here's the thing: signing this petition is an act of intellectual cowardice.

If they were true, the reasons cited by the signatories would indeed be damning of Harper's nomination. There's no question whatsoever about that. If the Nobel committee found these things to be true, there's no way Harper would be considered seriously for the award.

So if the signatories really had any confidence whatsoever that the things they say are true, they would have no objection to the Nobel committee considering Harper's nomination. By attempting an end-run around the evaluation process by petitioning the committee to reject the nomination out-of-hand, they're instead demonstrating that they have no confidence in the things they say; that they are aware that the things they say are untrue, and simply expect the nomination committee to accept them unquestioningly.

This is not to say that if the Peace Prize is awarded to someone other than Harper that what these nutjobs say about Harper is true, merely that there was a more deserving candidate. Which is, frankly, how these awards should be awarded.

There is a pro-Harper petition as well. It hasn't been circulating for as long as the anti-Harper petition, but if you believe the Nobel Peace Prize committee should consider Harper''s nomination, you could do worse than to sign it.


  1. So… signing an anti-nomination petition is an act of intellectual cowardice, yet you end by suggesting people sign a pro-nomination petition? You do realize how humorously hypocritical that makes you sound, right?

    1. "if you believe the Nobel Peace Prize committee should consider Harper''s nomination, you could do worse than to sign it."

      Considering the above, and the fact that Harper is already nominated by a valid nominator under NPP rules, I'd love to hear you attempt to flesh that "argument" out.

  2. I have no argument to make. I'm simply saying that yours is no more based on facts nor statistics than any others, and encouraging people to sign a petition you favour after declaring that signing another petition is an act of intellectual cowardice is hypocritical. If the nomination is valid then a pro-nomination petition is just as useless as an anti-nomination petition.

    1. That's what he was saying. I understood it. I guess you didn't.

    2. Your accusation of hypocrisy depends on a false equivalent: one is an attempt to circumvent the nomination process. The other is of support for that nomination and the process.

      In future, I advise you not to attempt such end runs. It demonstrates a lack of confidence in your own false claims.

  3. My reason for signing the petition was because Stephen Harper is a doofus. Besides, the only medal Harper deserves would be a participant medal in an egg-sucking contest. On that note,the dripping self importance in your (Patrick Ross') replies leads me to believe you'd be in contention for first place!... keep up the good work being a CONservative shill! :)

    1. A rational, well-reasoned argument like this sure makes me glad you're a voter.

  4. I do NOT think for one moment, that Stephen Harper could actually "win", the Nobel Prize, despite this bogus and obviously pandered, nomination made by Frank Dimant of B'Nai Brith..

    So why did "I" sign this petition?

    Simple...The nomination IS ludicrous.... and...because I think this petition is a wonderful opportunity for those of us who want Harper and his "govt" out of office.
    I cannot think of a better way to let the world know, just how much Mr. Harper is personally disliked and in the opinion of many Canadian citizens, the WORSE PM, in Canadian history..

    THIS petition has had a great response and has generated publicity for the, "as far left as possible from Harper." crowd,...not such great publicity, for the Conservative Party and it's already scandal ridden, Govt. from the Senate, PMO,,Caucus down to the staffers, they usually blame.....
    Not good news, for Harper in an election year..I'd say!

    1. If you had the courage of your convictions you'd be content to let the NPP committee deny Harper the award based on such complaints, rather than demand that his nomination be dismissed out-of-hand for reasons unexamined.

      I think there's a good reason for your lack of courage: because you know, as I know, that the things you say are not true.

  5. So you call people cowards for speaking their mind? I think your the chicken here. Your afraid of the Liberal values that require honesty, a trait you don't have as a writer.

    1. Liberal values require honesty? Is that like when Hedy Fry lied in Parliament about cross burnings in Prince George?

  6. How dare anyone - whether Patrick Ross or the Calgary Herald - present an opposing opinion, right supposedly tolerant and inclusive progressives?

    As long as it matches your own, it's tolerated.

  7. The hilarity of all the screaming and foaming over Harper's support for Israel is the silly sheep are too stupid, blind, and arrogant to acknowledge that the man who will in all likelihood be the next PM of Canada has the same view:

    “The Liberal Party of Canada strongly condemns Hamas’ rejection of the Egyptian ceasefire proposal and its rocket attacks on civilians.

    “Israel should be commended for having accepted the ceasefire proposal, and demonstrating its commitment to peace. The Liberal Party of Canada, and many in the international community including the United States, the U.N. Security Council, and the Palestinian Authority, had urged a ceasefire that could have ended the tragic civilian loss of life in Gaza and the suffering of Israelis under terrorist attack.

    “Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately.”

    Harper support Israel baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, Trudeau support Israel goooooooooooooooooooood, because he's just so sexy and dreamy and honest and refreshing and entitled to his own opinion, right sheep?

    LOL! Blocked on Twitter yesterday by five Trudeau sheep simply for posting that inconvenient FACT.

  8. snip...>I will speak at further length about his petition, and just how, frankly, cowardly an effort it really is.<


    snip...>There is a pro-Harper petition as well. It hasn't been circulating for as long as the anti-Harper petition, but if you believe the Nobel Peace Prize committee should consider Harper''s nomination, you could do worse than to sign it.<

    PRICELESS!...hoisted by your own petard....

    1. Speaking of "priceless."

      Your argument here rests upon a false equivalent. It isn't the act of supporting a petition that is or is not "cowardly." It depends fully upon what the petition in question represents. In one case the petition is asking the NPP committee to forgo its regular process and reject Harper's nomination out-of-hand. In the other case, the petition simply asks the NPP committee to implement its regular process by properly considering the nomination.

      You're trying to hard to find shortcuts so you don't have to address the substance of the argument. I believe there's a reason for this: it's because you can't.