Canadian MP Parrish booted from Liberal part by PM Martin [Archive]

View Full Version : Canadian MP Parrish booted from Liberal part by PM Martin

horrorfreak13

11-19-2004, 01:33 PM

TORONTO (CP) - A defiant Carolyn Parrish was making no apologies Friday, a day after the maverick MP was kicked out of the Liberal caucus by Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"I don't regret it," Parrish told a crush of reporters who greeted her at her Toronto constituency office.

She said she was poised to resign from the Liberal caucus when she met Thursday with the prime minister.

"I went in to resign, Mr. Martin was charming, as he always is; I got weak knees again," Parrish said.

"This is good; it's made me do what I want to do."

Parrish also suggested she let her guard down in what proved to be an explosive interview the same day with The Canadian Press.

"A cautionary tale to rookies: when you have a conversation with a friendly reporter, always remember they're a reporter."

Parrish said she's guilty only of "being an open, approachable person" and has no intention of altering her behaviour when she returns to the House of Commons as an independent.

"I don't have the shell around me that people require in politics, and the day I get that shell I get out of politics. I like me the way I am."

The suburban Toronto Liberal gained notoriety for her outspoken anti-Americanism - "Damn Americans, I hate the bastards," she once said - and for calling George W. Bush "war-like."

Earlier this week, she taped a segment for the comedy show This Hour has 22 Minutes in which she stomps on a Bush doll.

But the final straw for Martin came after Parrish took direct aim at his leadership in an interview with CP on Wednesday.

Parrish, 58, had said that if Martin "loses the next election and he has to resign, I wouldn't shed a tear over it."

"I have absolutely no loyalty to this team - none."

Parrish said she spoke to Martin for an hour Wednesday evening and thought things might work out because he gave her a "bear hug" as she was leaving.

But she also realized she had gone too far.

"What it was in the end was defiance of the control of Mr. Martin and his backroom," she said in a radio interview

Parrish repeated that she has been unhappy since Martin refused to intervene to ensure a "clean race" for the Liberal nomination in her riding of Mississauga-Erindale.

"It's not the same party we had even of two years ago," she said. "There's a lot of discontent and a little bit of fear."

Parrish's firing reduced the minority Liberal ranks in the 308-seat Commons to 134 seats.

The Conservatives hold 99 seats, the Bloc Quebecois 54 and New Democrats 19.

Parrish becomes the second Independent.

Cabinet ministers, backbenchers and even opposition critics on the left who share many of Parrish's views had little sympathy for her dismissal.

Martin had reprimanded Parrish twice in the past for her anti-American comments but had ignored Opposition calls to eject her from caucus.

The Conservatives said the firing was long overdue. They criticized Martin for not taking action when Parrish insulted Bush, while moving swiftly when she criticized the prime minister.

Since her initial "bastards" comment, Parrish was elected for a third time with a healthy majority in her riding.

Finally this was long overdue you can't have someone in parliment making comments like this wether you like the US president or not but the past month she went too far.

jeo4

11-19-2004, 02:17 PM

She insulted Bush, which is all fine and good, but then she insulted her own PM. What did she expect? A fruit basket?! Man!

:rolleyes:

<3mekthx

11-19-2004, 02:28 PM

Those damn Canadians!

Lynn7

11-19-2004, 02:59 PM

We have lots of leaders that mouth off and say insulting and stupid things but they serve at the pleasure of the people. They can stay in office as long as their constituents keep voting them in. I guess the parlimentary system of government is different and in view of that she did not seem very smart politically. I'm sure she'll make lots of money in speaking engagements since so many people seem to ahte Bush up there. She can also come here and find groups who would pay to hear her speak. I really think Bush is a good guy and while people can differ about if we should have fought in Iraq I still don't get all this hatred for him (except from a spiritual standpoint- where agnostics and atheists seem to abhor his religious beliefs).

Goosey

11-19-2004, 04:40 PM

Good for Martin, and good riddance to the old witch. Too bad she'll probably still get a big fat pension when she's done. I agree with you Lynn, I too find some peoples blind hatred of Bush to be quite unreasonable, whether you agree with the Iraq war or not.

Also, how about other news today where another liberal MP is alleged to be a member of the mafia? It's a real headache of a day for Big Paul.

free

11-19-2004, 08:47 PM

(except from a spiritual standpoint- where agnostics and atheists seem to abhor his religious beliefs).

I don't abhor his religious beliefs, I abhor his (and others) trying to make his religious beliefs into law.

But the final straw for Martin came after Parrish took direct aim at his leadership in an interview with CP on Wednesday.

So, elected officials can't have opinions about their own party?

Good thing for Colin Powell and John McCain we aren't that strict here.

Raoul Duke

11-19-2004, 09:22 PM

Well, Free, she made comments along the line of "I couldn't care less if Martin gets re-elected"...and "I feel no loyalty at all to this party".

<3mekthx

11-19-2004, 09:22 PM

She sounds like a real catch.

I feel sorry for her husband.

TheAxeGrinder

11-20-2004, 12:02 AM

What a bitch. Just another reason why the Liberals in this country are arrogant morons who cheat taxpayers out of their money and fuck us over with shitty laws. Maybe she'll end up in the NDP?

Criminal Rock

11-20-2004, 02:59 AM

Let’s not make too many sweeping generalizations here...

badberry

11-20-2004, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
What a bitch. Just another reason why the Liberals in this country are arrogant morons who cheat taxpayers out of their money and fuck us over with shitty laws. Maybe she'll end up in the NDP?

:rolleyes:

Like Tai Mai said, you're just looking for excuses to make unjustified generalizations. The party has effectively told her they don't want her, and I believe she deserved it.

By the way, what "shitty laws" are you referring to?

Goosey

11-20-2004, 02:07 PM

Tai Mai, I believe Axegrinder is referring to Liberals the actual political party, and not liberals in general. I think most non Canadians assume that The Liberals are the "liberal" party in Canada, when really it's the NDP.

Lynn7

11-20-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by free
I don't abhor his religious beliefs, I abhor his (and others) trying to make his religious beliefs into law.

Actually it is the non-Christians who are trying to change existing laws that have been on the books since the country's beginnings.Abortion has never been legal and gay marriage has never been legal. Bush isn't making Christian beliefs into law they already have been the law.Why do people say he is imposing when his beliefs are no different than those of all the traditional presidents (and even Clinton opposed gay marriage but he seems to get a pass on this).

TheAxeGrinder

11-20-2004, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by badberry
:rolleyes:

Like Tai Mai said, you're just looking for excuses to make unjustified generalizations. The party has effectively told her they don't want her, and I believe she deserved it.

By the way, what "shitty laws" are you referring to?

Looking for excuses? I'm sorry, no matter what anyone says, there are no excuses for the Liberals in this country. Let's see, we had the sponsorship scandal that everyone had all but forgotten and voted for those crooks anyways in the last election, we Ontarians have a two-faced scumbag in Premier Dalton Maguinty, who obviously can't remember what he said during his campaign, as he went and spent more money behind taxpayer's backs when that money was for health care. And let's not forget Bill C68 aka Gun Control, aka Allan Rock's 3 billion dollar waste of shit. Fuck, why can't people open their eyes and see what the hell is going on with the Liberals in this country? Oh yeah, and Martin is supposed to be the 'savior' in all of this. Fat chance. He's keeping Canada's budget suplus for the Liberal party and decided not to lower taxes, which are some of the highest in the world. All I can say is that it's a good thing we have a minority government so that the Liberals can't throw their weight around and screw everyone over as badly as before.

outsyder

11-21-2004, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
Oh yeah, and Martin is supposed to be the 'savior' in all of this.

No, it's Sheila Copps, according to Sheila Copps, of course.

badberry

11-21-2004, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
Looking for excuses? I'm sorry, no matter what anyone says, there are no excuses for the Liberals in this country. Let's see, we had the sponsorship scandal that everyone had all but forgotten and voted for those crooks anyways in the last election, we Ontarians have a two-faced scumbag in Premier Dalton Maguinty, who obviously can't remember what he said during his campaign, as he went and spent more money behind taxpayer's backs when that money was for health care. And let's not forget Bill C68 aka Gun Control, aka Allan Rock's 3 billion dollar waste of shit. Fuck, why can't people open their eyes and see what the hell is going on with the Liberals in this country? Oh yeah, and Martin is supposed to be the 'savior' in all of this. Fat chance. He's keeping Canada's budget suplus for the Liberal party and decided not to lower taxes, which are some of the highest in the world. All I can say is that it's a good thing we have a minority government so that the Liberals can't throw their weight around and screw everyone over as badly as before.

I'm not saying there aren't problems with the Liberal party. Yes, the sponsorship scandal was bad, but its being dealt with now. And the party was punished for it by being reduced to a minority. The new PM Martin knows he has to shape things up if he wants to stay alive.

The gun registry is a disaster. There's no denying that

And no, they are not cutting taxes. But keeping the surplus for the party? Huh? They are investing it in this country by spending in the programs they said they would spend in and paying off the debt, like they said they would do. Not to mention giving our military funding a much needed boost. I don't think Canadian taxes are that bad considering the return we get for them. The Liberals are working overtime to get their credibility back and so far are doing a good job, IMO.

I can't speak for Ontario, but if you want an extreme example of people having short memories and voting stupidly, come to Alberta where we blindly elect the PCs election after election, seemingly ignoring everything they've fucked up on. Sigh. 30+ years and counting....

badberry

11-21-2004, 04:07 AM

free

11-21-2004, 09:23 AM

MacReady

11-21-2004, 10:34 AM

Raymond Babbit

11-21-2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Actually it is the non-Christians who are trying to change existing laws that have been on the books since the country's beginnings.Abortion has never been legal and gay marriage has never been legal. Bush isn't making Christian beliefs into law they already have been the law.Why do people say he is imposing when his beliefs are no different than those of all the traditional presidents (and even Clinton opposed gay marriage but he seems to get a pass on this).

Abortion has never been legal? Hello? Roe v. Wade?

And as far as gay marriage goes, I believe it's the 14th amendment that guarantees all citizens the same rights. Therefore, to deny gays the right to marry, or even to have civil unions, is to either deny them of rights guaranteed by the constitution, since all other citizens have that right, or to say that they're second class citizens, which is no worse than what we did to the blacks for hundreds of years. People keep referring to that as morals, but it seems to me like it's really just fear and hatred.

And seperation of church and state's been in there since the beginning too, yet many people (not necessarily including Bush, although he may be one of them) are pushing more to keep religion in the government. These same people would get pissed if the government tried to get involved in the running of their churches. So I say, keep your religion out of politics, and we'll keep politics out of your religion

Lynn7

11-21-2004, 08:55 PM

I meant abortion was never legal prior to Roe v. Wade. It was always illegal. Every person does have the right to marry.Gay people have the right to marry a person from the opposite sex the same as everyone else. No one can marry their sister or brother either. There are rules against having more than one wife or husband and their are also age laws as Mary Letourneau found out. It is not Bush making changes it is a liberal judge- a single non-elected person who has decided to change the history of the world.Bush knows the ammendment will never pass but he is doing it to let the people decide and not a single judge. He is doing the right thing. If gay marriage goes through it should be becasue the people have voted for a very drastic change.

And even though it may not say that marriage is only between a man and a woman specifically in some states it was always accepted as so obvious that it didn't even need mentioning. There were plenty of sodomy laws on the books though and I think some states still have these.

I'm not saying I'm against gay marriage but I'm saying Bush is getting a bum rap on this issue. he beleives gay couples should have legal rights but just not marriage.He is no different on this than most of the country.

Lynn7

11-21-2004, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
Here's a good reason why I don't like Bush "over-christianizing". (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/7679608.htm?1c)

And here's are two good (http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_external.php?article=100553&list=/home.php&) reasons (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) why I really fucking hate him outside of his beliefs (I have dozens of extra reasons as well).

The first link didn't work but anyway, I know you hate George W but do you hate the terrorists? do youknow they found a woman in the street that had been dismembered and left as trash and what about the aid worker they killed last week? how about the fact that our soldiers found 9 Iraqi soldiers killed execution style and then 7 of them were decapitated? and what do you think these people would do to the Iraqi people if the US left? They would torture and kill and impose Taliban style rules. Prior to us going into Iraq they were already terrorizing the people and torturing them and putting ghem into mass graves. How about rape rooms? I just think it's strange that so many people direct their hatred at Bush and not at the terrorists. Maybe it's because the terrorists are scary and Bush is a non-threatening target.

Zebra 3

11-22-2004, 12:26 AM

As a Liberal MP, Carolyn Parrish was allowed by her party one question yearly and now as an Independent MP she's entitled to ask one question weekly in the House.

MacReady

11-22-2004, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The first link didn't work.

Damn!

It was supposed to be about how the Bush administration had recently supported a guy who was selling books in the Grand Canyon about how the gorge (I think that's the right word) was caused by the great flood of Noah's ark! I don't much about geology but even I know that's incredibly stupid.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I know you hate George W but do you hate the terrorists? do youknow they found a woman in the street that had been dismembered and left as trash and what about the aid worker they killed last week? how about the fact that our soldiers found 9 Iraqi soldiers killed execution style and then 7 of them were decapitated? and what do you think these people would do to the Iraqi people if the US left? They would torture and kill and impose Taliban style rules. Prior to us going into Iraq they were already terrorizing the people and torturing them and putting ghem into mass graves. How about rape rooms? I just think it's strange that so many people direct their hatred at Bush and not at the terrorists. Maybe it's because the terrorists are scary and Bush is a non-threatening target.

*Sigh*

Another reason I hate Bush. After 9/11, he made bullshit claims about how the only reason America was attack is because it's free and Taliban states aren't, like these terrorist would end their lives merely because their jealous. My history teacher told me that the American government had been guilty of trying to smuggle/steal oil from Afghanistan before 9/11 along with the fact that I've read some theorize that 9/11 itself was done to try and weaken the US economy (of course they had to have seen killing American lives as a important thing too). Bush foolishily created a 'good vs. evil' scenario and I feel he's enforce the myth that you're either with him or a terrorists supporter of sorts. It's kinda like BubbaStrangelove's rather brillian analysis he used involving Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings:

Person #1:I like cops.

Person #2: I like cops too.

Person #3: I can't say I like corrupt cops to much.

Person #1: Oh, so you like criminals?

Person #3: No, but thanks for asking. :rolleyes:

That's how I feel about it. Sure, the Taliban and Al Queda are criminals who should be punished, but I feel Bush is a corrupt cop. He should hardly consider himself all that righteous compared to them. I feel that this isn't 'good vs. evil' but 'evil vs. evil'.

Another thing: you spoke of how pulling out right now might give the chance for the Taliban to take over or a civil war might errupt and turn it into a theocratical state (like it's our business when they go to war and when they don't:rolleyes:) but I remember a news story that suggested that Iraq might revert back to it's old ways in a short time, even if the American troops stay. They're going to have an election and polls have shown that a candidate that's not favorable for the US might win. If so, it would prove the "Clockwork Orange", in which you can try adn try, but simply can't force Iraq into a democracy. They'll have to do it on their own.

free

11-22-2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Every person does have the right to marry.Gay people have the right to marry a person from the opposite sex the same as everyone else.

You may have mispoke, but it sounds like your saying a gay person can marry someone outside his/her own sex. If they're gay, why would they marry someone from th opposite sex?

It is not Bush making changes it is a liberal judge- a single non-elected person who has decided to change the history of the world.Bush knows the ammendment will never pass but he is doing it to let the people decide and not a single judge.

Actually, I believe there were several judges that voted on Roe v. Wade.

So, you believe the population should decide whether I (hypothetically) have the right to spend my life with the person I love? Well, if the population voted to outlaw Christianity, would you still feel the same? How about slavery, should we still have that?

No group, no matter how large, should be allowed to repress the rights of anyone.

There were plenty of sodomy laws on the books though and I think some states still have these.

In Alabama, sodomy and oral sex are both outlawed, as is sales of items intended to sexually stimulate. They have pretty much tried their best to make it illegal to be gay, without using those words.

Lynn7

11-23-2004, 12:00 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by free
[B]You may have mispoke, but it sounds like your saying a gay person can marry someone outside his/her own sex. If they're gay, why would they marry someone from th opposite sex?
__________________________________________________ ____-

My point is that we all have the right to marry. if you do not want to that is your own perrogative. If a gay person does not want to marry someone form the opposite sex that is their choice. They are not being denied rights so to speak.

_________________________________________________

Actually, I believe there were several judges that voted on Roe v. Wade.
__________________________________________________ _____

I was not refferring ot Row v Wade but to the court case in Mass where one liberal judge said gay marriage needs to be legal.

__________________________________________________ _
So, you believe the population should decide whether I (hypothetically) have the right to spend my life with the person I love? Well, if the population voted to outlaw Christianity, would you still feel the same? How about slavery, should we still have that?
__________________________________________________ _______

As a Christian I believe that God has given us the right to choose whether to follow him or not so I happen to not have a problem with gay marriage. The thing that makes me nervous is that every step we take away from the basic man and woman unit of marrige brings us into unknown territory. It seems innocuous right now to let gay people marry but what will marriage look like in another 50 years? It seemed OK to allow abortions until ultrasound came along and showed the fetus at a young age jumping around and now we even had allowed the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion- it's the slippery slope that frightens me.

Life has never been fair. If a woman who is 4'11'' has a life dream of being a firefighter but cannot do so because she cannot carry the equipment or lift an unconsicious person is that fair? It is her dream to do this but it will not be good for the other firefighters or the victimes if she is allowed to do so.
If a gay couple wants to marry it can change society in many unknown ways. If same sex marriages are allowed there soon will be many non-gay couples marrying for financial reasons (maybe to get insurance- two single women with 10 kids between them will marry and if this happens commonly then maybe insurance will be affected for everyone). That is one possible reason why we should move slowly on this issue. It might all be fine but it might cause some problems we cannot forsee. It is good to have discussions about it before the law is changed. In the mean time gay people can make legal contracts that give rights to their partners.

free

11-23-2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
My point is that we all have the right to marry. if you do not want to that is your own perrogative. If a gay person does not want to marry someone form the opposite sex that is their choice. They are not being denied rights so to speak.

During the Holocaust, people could have chosen to be Jewish or not. They didn't have to die, all they had to do was denounce their religion.

My point is, thhey still had their rights taken away, even though they could choose to be something they weren't.

I was not refferring ot Row v Wade but to the court case in Mass where one liberal judge said gay marriage needs to be legal.

Ok, I wasn't aware of the specifics of that case, I thought it was decided by your Supreme Court. Why has't someone appealed it yet?

As a Christian I believe that God has given us the right to choose whether to follow him or not so I happen to not have a problem with gay marriage. The thing that makes me nervous is that every step we take away from the basic man and woman unit of marrige brings us into unknown territory..

I was referring to you when you said, "...but he is doing it to let the people decide and not a single judge."

That would mean you would have to agree that if the majority of Americans voted to ban Christianity, or re-introduce slavery, that it would be okay, since the needs of the many outway the needs of the few. (sorry, had to slip in a Star Trek refference ;))

If same sex marriages are allowed there soon will be many non-gay couples marrying for financial reasons (maybe to get insurance- two single women with 10 kids between them will marry and if this happens commonly then maybe insurance will be affected for everyone).

One single man and one single woman with 10 kids between them could do the same thing, so I don't see how that point is valid.

It might all be fine but it might cause some problems we cannot forsee. It is good to have discussions about it before the law is changed.

I am by no means suggesting you are a racist, (because I believe you aren't) but that is almost the exact same argument that our former Governor, George Wallace, used to try to keep the first African-American students from intergrating into public schools in Alabama. Just something to think about.