Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FORSETH -- Trash talk of one uncouth individual causes a firestorm of opposing opinions


LANGUAGE WARNING:

WOW … a few seconds – 8 words -- of uncouth and vulgar speech has brought about a firestorm of opposing opinions across social media.

Those 8 words?  “Get the f--- out of BC. You suck”, were spoken by twice failed School Trustee (Nelson 2022 and Castlegar 2024) Emily Duggan, who is also, apparently, subject to a peace bond and ordered to stay away from an elementary school.

I posted a story about this on my own political Facebook page, this morning (Sunday December 29th), and boy did it start a raft of comments, agreeing with her right to say what she did, but also firmly opposing her comment.  Here’s just a few examples:

•    He has it coming. The narcissist

•    Why? They're getting old enough to know that their Dad is well, well past his governing expiry date. He is genuinely hated in many corners of this polite land of ours.

•    Trudeau is trash and he wrecked our country. You’re part of the problem! People sleeping in their vehicles or not eating cause of him. You’re a prime example of when cousin is just a word! You should leave too.

•    The criminal will be exposed and try to run to other countries. Hopefully he takes his kids with him no more POS with the Trudeau last name can ever step in House of Commons again

•    It's not polite or civil. It's not harassment either, if it's only once, given his position. It's not a rock or explosive drone through the windshield, so it could be worse. It wasn't in the driveway at school, or Christmas dinner. His kids were safe throughout.

Really – it’s okay because it wasn’t a rock, or explosive, thrown threw a window … it could have been worse?  Of course, it could have been worse, but that doesn’t make what she did right.

Thankfully, there were also comments from those opposed to what Duggan had to say:

•    Surely, we are not condoning a politician being harassed when he is on a vacation with family? Completely unacceptable in my view.

•    I mourn the death of civility, on all sides of the political and social spectrum

•    I can stand in front of a person and dress them down, quite brutally too, but I never have to swear. I never have to raise my voice. I don't have to insult them. I just have to tell them why they are wrong with a reasoned argument.

I also appreciated the more thoughtful and articulate comments expressed in the following (edited for brevity):

•    This "person" is nothing more than an uncouth bully looking for attention. Those on the far right sharing her video are contributing to the problem. We're not all on duty at our jobs 24/7/365. We are allowed vacations, and, on our vacations, we are off duty. We can be with our families. We don't have to answer questions or be at the beck and call of some stranger. I sure as Hell won't be voting Liberal this year, but that doesn't mean I have to go around being rude and sounding ignorant.

NO ONE, I don't care what their politics/beliefs, has 'it coming', as one individual remarked.

For those who do believe Trudeau ‘had it coming’, would they exclude themselves from having abuse heaped on them, especially if it was in front of their children?

I ask this because of one who remarked, “On the list of things not to do in front of the children, this is pretty far down from the top”.

It appeared, from checking their Facebook profile page, that they have children, which is why I asked:

You've justified as okay using that kind of language in front of his kids.  Would that be fine in front of your kids? If not now, in two years? How about 5?

To give them credit, he did replay by saying, “If I got that in front of them, for good reason, it's an unfortunate teachable moment. Sometimes being rude IS the message, as unpleasant as that is.”

I wonder though if they would agree being rude would include this comment, partially directed at me:

F--- Trudeau and his spawn. It’s good that he can’t go anywhere in Canada without being told where to go. How many families and kids did he fuck over? Right. Now go f--- yourself.

Thanks, but no thanks, I don’t think I’ll do that.

Whether in public or hidden behind a computer screen making rude and vicious comments, it seems like some (many) feel they have the right to say anything that crosses their mind.  

It reminds me of an acronym I was made aware of several years ago; O.T.M.O.T.M.  It means, “On the mind, out the mouth.”  Those who suffer from 
O.T.M.O.T.M. (and I’ve been guilty of it myself on occasion) also seem unable to take a few moments to think first before commenting.

As always, people will disagree with me and argue I’m wrong. It's fine by me, I don’t care.

In my opinion, what Emily Duggan said was wrong. It was crude and vulgar, and totally inappropriate to say in a public place, especially in front of his children.

No amount of excusing it as free speech, or that he was deserving of what was said, is going to change my mind.

Comments

  1. Thanks Al. We might be on opposite sides of politics, but we agree on where to draw the line.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Taxpayers funded vacation makes him fair game For any and all criticism

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taxpayer funded or not --- he was NOT fair game for the uncouth comments of this individual. They were completely uncalled for -- especially in front of his children.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...

Labels

Show more