Why are you Jack? I seem to remember a Liberal that paid a huge price for a comparison of some nature about Olivia Chow. I think he's still paying the price. Yet, Jack Layton has decided, not only to stand by Mr. McKeever, but, in fact, defend him. McKeever, who actually put threats to people in written word over the internet is being allowed to continue his run as a candidate for the House of Commons.
Another question is: Isn't there still a law somewhere that deals with "uttering a threat" in this land? Mr. McKeever uttered threats over the internet and they are in writing. Couldn't a charge be laid? It's obvious Mr. McKeever has clearly lost sight of how serious the ramifications of his comments really are.
Seriously Jack, isn't this guy a bit worse than your dope smokers in BC? At least they didn't call a woman a cu*t JACK! Fire McKeever Jack. Do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, this one is a total mystery. Perhaps it is simply a matter of numbers. Perhaps they didn't do proper vetting so Layton didn't know about this until more recently and then he figured having already ditched 3 candidates, he thought it was more a liability to ditch 4 than the liability of having someone like McKeever representing the NDP. That's my guess.
But I have to admit, it doesn't make a lot of sense. You ditch someone and it is a bad blib for several days, while, at the moment McKeever could be the bad gift that keeps giving. I can't really believe Layton condones this stuff -- but who knows? That is what his actions are conveying. He seems to be hoping that by getting the victims to stand by the NDP, this will be enough. Trouble is words like that being condoned send a clear message of low standards and lack of leadership.
Post a Comment