Oooh, such a prize these folks have got in Parliament.

[matt_mcl]

From cbc.ca:

• Liberal MP Tom Wappel has apologized for snubbing a constituent’s appeal for help because the man had voted for the Alliance party. …

Wappel sent the letter to Jim Baxter, a legally blind war veteran, who was asking for help getting his benefits.

It said: “How is it that you are writing me for help if you did not think enough of my abilities to justify voting for me?”

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/05/10/vet_mom_lk_010510

Now, speaking as someone who busted my own tuchas to get into Parliament, to represent my constituents as this fellow is now refusing to do for his…

sigh.

[RickJay]

Bear in mind that Tom Wappel is the same clown who since 1988 has been campaigning on a straight “Family values” platform… and a few years ago abandoned his family.

What a scumbag. He is clearly unfit to hold public office.

[Fyodor]

the only thing he did wrong was speak out loud the standard operating procedure for all those slithering parasites.

[minty_green]

Damn useless blind war veterans. What use are they anyway if they’re going to vote for the other party?

[Balduran]

On opening this I assumed it was going to be about our buddy Stock, but they come in all political stripes don’t they?

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by Al Zheimers *
**the only thing he did wrong was speak out loud the standard operating procedure for all those slithering parasites. **

Actually, in fairness, this is NOT the SOP of an MP. I’ve never heard of an MP refusing to help a constituent based on who they allegedly did or didn’t vote for. (If Wappel had a brain cell in his bone-filled head he’d realize that helping all your constituents is a good way to get them to vote for you in the NEXT election.)

Politicians may get porkbarrel stuff for their friends, but this sort of thing is a basic service any MP is expected to provide her/his constituency. Wappel is the first MP I’ve ever heard of who refused it based on votes. That’s what makes him such a colossal cockstraw.

[casdave]

He seems to have some way of knowing how the chap voted, interesting that.

I always thought that was private.

[Lady_Ice]

Thats all he did? Here in the states in Michigan we have a state senator who has in no particular order:

Been busted for drunk driving 3 times.
Was arrested for domestic assault for beating up his girlfriend while they were on vacation.
And was caught with pornographic pictures of said girlfriend on his state owned computer in his office.

Ain’t politics just grand?:rolleyes:

[matt_mcl]

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2001/05/12/wappel_bas_010512

It was sent to Larry Bond, another constituent in the Ontario riding of Scarborough Southwest, who had attacked Wappel in a handwritten note that contained profanity.

Bond, a former CBC employee, had chastised Wappel in 1998 after the MP’s 25-year marriage ended. Wappel, who has publicly expressed strong views on family values, was accused of being phoney.

In his reply Sept. 3, 1998, the Member of Parliament wrote: "What a puny and pitiful life you must lead, to find happiness in the pain of others.

“I’d invite you to kiss my ass, but I’m afraid you would interpret it as an invitation, rather than the insult it is meant to be,” Wappel’s letter continued.

[matt_mcl]

http://cbc.ca/national/rex/rex20010510.html

There are ways to get worse publicity than Tom Wappel, the MP who wrote an 81–year–old, a veteran, legally blind and partially deaf, and told him, sneeringly, in effect to get lost– because the old man had not voted Liberal. The Toronto Star broke the story yesterday.

Here are some:
[li]You could nail a five–day–old kitten to the floor and use it as a doorstop.[/li][li]You could cut off the heat to an orphanage in winter, and insist the little ones dance for stale biscuits, and then not give them any.[/li][li]Or, You could take a chainsaw to the last redwood that was also the home of the last eagle and have it fall on the last panda.[/li]
Outside of these cringing options, however Mr. Tom Wappel has more or less cornered the market in the Olympics of obnoxious behaviour.

[Lady_Ice]

After reading Matt_mcl’s post (sorry, I haven’t learned how to quote yet) I have to agree this guy is definitely a turd.
I guess our political system down here is starting to affect our neighbors to the north.

Also, as far as our lovely Senator down here in Michigan goes, the state legislation has begun removal from office proceedings. I hope the dumbshit gets removed.

[Lucki_Chaarms]

matt_mcl, you were/are in the parliament?

I was a semi-forced resident of Canada for three years (boarding school). I never really understood Canadian government, but I was in an early-teen nihilist phase, so I never really learned much at all.

Anyways, directed toward this gentleman, I must quote George Carlin:

YOU ASSHOLE IN A HAT!

Well, pinko love to you, Matt (as well as some rainbow love). Maybe I will get up to Quebec one of these days, when I am no longer protected under statutory rape laws . I will assume you were unaware that I’m only 16 and let it slide.

Hehe, I have some serious scandal material here, there was a little innuendo in this thread. Blackmail time!

I think I’m gonna change my name, I’m leaning away from Bolshevism. Although I am being asked by the higher-ups in my Soicalist group to be the head of an Austin chapter. So confusing. Matt, write me an email and explain your not-socialist philosophy to me.

MarxBoy

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by MarxBoy *
**matt_mcl, you were/are in the parliament?

I was a semi-forced resident of Canada for three years (boarding school). I never really understood Canadian government, but I was in an early-teen nihilist phase, so I never really learned much at all.

No, I just ran for election.

Quick recap: Principal body of importance in Canada is the House of Commons, 301 Members of Parliament (MPs) each elected by and representing their own district (“riding”). Five parties: Liberals (moderate conservatives), Conservatives (moderate liberals), Alliance (extreme right wing), NDP (my party - social democrats) and Bloc Quebecois (sovereignist). Leader of the party with most seats becomes the Prime Minister (currently Jean Chretien, leader of the Liberal party.) Tom Wappel is a Liberal MP for a riding in suburban Toronto.

Maybe I will get up to Quebec one of these days, when I am no longer protected under statutory rape laws . I will assume you were unaware that I’m only 16 and let it slide.

Canadian legal age is 14…

I think I’m gonna change my name, I’m leaning away from Bolshevism. Although I am being asked by the higher-ups in my Soicalist group to be the head of an Austin chapter. So confusing. Matt, write me an email and explain your not-socialist philosophy to me.**

Will do.

[Lucki_Chaarms]

**
Canadian legal age is 14…
**

Damn. There’s something really… stirring about being jailbait ;).

[Balduran]

Liberals (moderate conservatives), Conservatives (moderate liberals)

Heh heh, reminds me of what Howard Hampton (NDP) said during the last Ontario Provincial election debate about Mike Harris (conservative) and Dalton Maginty (liberal). “What we have here is Mike Harris and Mike Harris lite”

[Fyodor]

There’s been a lot in the papers about the honourable Mr. Wappel.

He ran for the Liberal Party leadership of the Liberal Party in 1990 and placed fourth with 267 votes mainly from strong anti-abortion delegates.

In the political culture, anyone who runs for leadership with support is highly respected so he was appointed party immigration critic. He got bounced out of there after suggesting that refugee claimants be sent to work camps on abandoned military bases where they would be slave labour and forced to attend orientation classes.

He drafted a bill to stop criminals from making money from their memoirs. It was scrapped after experts declared it gibberish that could never be made into federal law.

His most strongly felt campaign has been against extending rights to homosexuals. In addition to opposing a bill to provide survivor benefits to gay and lesbian couples, he attacked a decision to add sexual orientation to laws against hate crime.

OK. Now I don’t support the Alliance but I do recall in the recent federal election the shrieking and screaming about the Alliance’s anti-abortion anti-gay policies…none of which was based on much fact. The Alliance’s primary platform is economic. Gays in particular were extremely loud in their anti-Alliance stance. Well, congratu-fucking-lations Canada, you’ve got the government you deserve. Liberal members of parliament are really just warm bodies filling seats and always voting as they are told to by the party leader (there is zero tolerance for dissenting votes within the Liberal Party.) So you’ve got this scumbag wearing the mantle of a Liberal sitting in parliament.

Maybe he will get tossed out in the next election but maybe not. He’s in a safe, bought and paid for, Liberal riding. And even if he does get tossed he’s been in there long enough to guarantee himself a fat pension, indexed to inflation, for the rest of his slimy life.

[Cat_Whisperer]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl ***<snip>
Quick recap:… Leader of the party with most seats becomes the Prime Minister (currently Jean Chretien, leader of the Liberal party.) <snip> **

Just for the sake of accuracy, that should read “Leader of the party with most seats in Ontario and Quebec becomes the Prime Minister”. Let’s not confuse the Americans into thinking that all of Canada has a say in who their elected high official will be.[/small hijack]

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by Al Zheimers *
**OK. Now I don’t support the Alliance but I do recall in the recent federal election the shrieking and screaming about the Alliance’s anti-abortion anti-gay policies…none of which was based on much fact. ** **

The Canadian Alliance scored 0%, also a reflection of the percentage of its MPs who voted in support of measures to provide equality for Canadian lesbians and gays. EGALE noted that Alliance MPs and candidates have denounced same-sex relationship recognition as an endorsement of “buggery”, have called homosexuality “destructive to family life” and “deviant” and have vowed to “fix” Bill C-23, which provides same-sex couples with the rights and responsibilities of opposite-sex couples. The party Constitution promises to evaluate all Bills and regulations “to ensure their effect on families is positive”, but excludes same-sex couples and opposite-sex unmarried couples by defining the family as those “related by blood, adoption or marriage.”

Alliance leader Stockwell Day maintains that he should not be labelled as “extremist” or criticized for his personal religious views. Fisher agrees: “I can confirm that EGALE has no interest in Stockwell Day’s private religious views. Canadians are, however, intensely interested in his public policy positions and those of his party. As an Alberta MLA, Stockwell Day opposed allowing same-sex couples to become foster parents, he opposed a grant to a lesbian and gay history exhibit, he opposed protecting lesbians and gays from discrimination in Alberta’s human rights legislation and he used the constitutional ‘notwithstanding’ clause in Alberta’s marriage legislation to try and block lesbians and gays from seeking equal marriage rights in the Courts.”

“The voting record of the Canadian Alliance on lesbian and gay equality issues is abysmal. 0% of Alliance MPs have supported our right to equal treatment. Their party constitution explicitly excludes common law couples, both same sex and opposite sex, from the definition of ‘family’. The Alliance is the only party to call in the House for use of the ‘notwithstanding’ clause to deny same-sex couples the equal right to marry. Stockwell Day’s so-called ‘agenda of respect’ is a sham. Clearly the Canadian Alliance does not support equal treatment for same-sex couples, and it is fundamentally dishonest for the Alliance to mislead voters by subtitling their policy platform ‘An Agenda of Respect for All Canadians.’ Canadians deserve politicians with more integrity. In view of their voting record, we are forced to conclude that the recent party make-over reflects a new leader, a new look, but the same old Reform Party prejudice. Canadians want no part of the politics of exclusion.”

From EGALE Election 2000 Press Kit on their election questionnaire