Friday, June 16, 2006

Rachel's Remedy for Politically-Correct Paralysis

Rachel Marsden's latest column is available from a link on her website: "The Perils of Political Correctness".

O.K. Even I am having a tough time with this one! Her tongue-in-cheek solution to our problems in dealing effectively with crime and terror in this country is rather humourous, but definitely not politically correct.

She muses that perhaps we could:

"...remove the white guilt factor altogether and just get the Islamofascists to duke it out with the Indians? The Islamofascists want to kill non-Muslim infidels, and the Indians want everyone off their land."
Man! I couldn't even get away with that on this blog, and she can say that in MSM?


Sara said...

check this out Jo, I wish I could write like the rest of them loll....

Zac said...

My, my...what a comment from Rachel.

jdave34 said...

A better idea:

How about if Rachel falsely accuses the muslims and natives of raping her. That way lives are ruined AND Rachel gets to make some cash.

Hey, it worked for her before.

TangoJuliette said...

jdave34: "How about if Rachel falsely accuses the muslims and natives of raping her. That way lives are ruined AND Rachel gets to make some cash. Hey, it worked for her before. jdave34 / Fri Jun 16, 12:24:12 PM EDT "

So, jdave, are you saying that the courts found in her favour? She WAS raped? You've raised this issue before. I am not at all familiar with it, so would ask you to please lay out the dates, times sequence of events, who was charged, and who, if anybody, was convicted, or plea-bargained down and away.

I find it a rather unpleasant possibiltiy to have to consider that a woman who files rape allegations, gets negative press as well, after the fact. If you are a male, you wouldn't necessarily have much understanding of the whole rape issue, except through the possibility of having a close female friend who's been victimized.

Please air the details of the case you reference.


TangoJuliette said...

Having posted the foregoing, I must now add that I too am more than just a little taken aback by her pseudo-black humour/gallows humour rant.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yeah, it's a bit over the top.

liberal supporter said...

The courts were not involved. There was no charge, conviction or plea bargain. Only her allegation of date rape.

It was the SFU harassment office that gave her money ($12,000). It does not appear that they recovered the money, though they reversed their decision, and the person she accused was given $60,000.

liberal supporter said...

More Ann Coulter wannabee junk.

Does Rachel believe that she is helping in the hearts and minds campaign to dissuade young people from believing the terrorist point of view?

Does she believe that she is helping in the hearts and minds campaign to gain Stephen a majority government?

It's always fun to laugh at "political correct" silliness, it's an example of over the top liberalness. This kind of over the top stuff is not.

Does she believe that with the pit-bull ban, we now have plenty of empty fighting pits and we could throw these people she dislikes into, to fight each other like dogs?

jdave34 said...


Seek and ye shall find! From Wikipedia:

Liam Donnelly
Main article: Marsden-Donnelly harassment case
Marsden first came to national attention as a student at Simon Fraser University in 1997 when her accusations against swim coach Liam Donnelly of a date rape in September, 1995, became public.[9]

Marsden and Donnelly laid complaints against one another with the SFU harassment office in the autumn 1995. Donnelly, however, on the advice of his lawyer, withdrew his own complaint and refused to attend Marsden's hearing. The panel found him guilty in October, 1996, and he was fired on May 23, 1997.[10] Marsden was given $12,000 to compensate her for the impact had on her life.[11]

After dismissing his lawyer and hiring another, Donnelly appealed the ruling and went public with his side of the story. He denied any romantic relationship with Marsden and asserted that she had in fact been harassing him. He claimed that Marsden showered him with stuffed toys, candy, flowers, and cards; provocative photographs of Marsden were slipped under his door;[12] she subscribed him to Playboy without his knowledge.[13] He received dozens of hang-up calls every day.[14] She also had sent him graphic emails with explicit offers of sex.[15] (These came a month after Marsden claimed Donnelly had raped her.)

SFU reversed its decision, rehiring Donnelly and at first paying $35,000 of his legal fees,[16] an amount that was later raised to $60,000.[17] The University issued a statement that Donnelly's original condemnation had been based on soley Marsden's testimony, but that her credibility was open to doubt. [18]

The case attracted much media attention, and the legitimacy of the investigative procedures and the conclusions drawn by the panel were cast into doubt. An internal SFU review discovered that the university's harassment policy coordinator Patricia O'Hagan had a personal relationship with Marsden and had shown her drafts of the initial report.[19]

As a result of the case, SFU radically revised its policies for dealing with harassment.[20] Eleven harassment cases were reopened and their decisions reversed. University president John Stubbs first took medical leave[21] and then resigned in the wake of the scandal.[22]

Patricia O'Hagan
Marsden's complaint to the SFU harassment office had been handled by that office's director, Patricia O'Hagan, and sometime during this process Marsden had begun showering O'Hagan with unwanted attention. In October 1997, O'Hagan, who at that point had left the university's employ, complained to the Vancouver Sun that over the preceding 12 months, Marsen had sent her chocolates, flowers, gift certificates, CDs, letters and tapes, as well as telephoning her some 400 times. The phone calls stopped in January when O'Hagan unlisted her number, but began again in July after Marsden had obtained the new one.[23]

Neil Boyd
In 1998, Marsden returned to SFU to study criminology. In May 1999, when she moved into residence, she was warned by the university to avoid locations where Neil Boyd, a criminology professor at SFU, might be found. In January, Boyd had gone to the Burnaby RCMP with copies of harassing e-mail and voice mail from Marsden, complaining that she had been asking Boyd, who was married, for dates. The university also asked Marsden to remove comments about Donnelly from her website.[24]

Michael Morgan
Marsden was arrested and charged with criminal harassment in November, 2002 after she was accused of stalking Vancouver radio personality Michael Morgan.[25] According to subsequently released court documents, they had been in contact since August 2001. In October 2001, however, after she sent flowers and a stuffed bear to Morgan's home, he complained to the police, who advised Marsden that her attention was unwanted.[26] In April, 2002, the two were again in touch, and by May they had begun a physical relationship.[26] In July, however, while Marsden was out of the country, Morgan had begun a relationship with another woman. On her return in October, Marsden tried to renew the relationship, leaving telephone messages for Morgan, some of them "vindictive and threatening", and sending emails both to Morgan and to his family and friends. On October 11, Morgan again complained to the police. During the investigation it was learned that Marsden began stalking him by surreptitiously set up Morgan's email so that she was automatically forwarded a blind copy of his incoming email.[26] In 2004 she pled guilty [1] to criminal harassment and was given a conditional discharge and one year of probation. She completed the sentence and has no criminal record.

So there's your standard-bearer of intellectual conservatism.

Joanne: Don't borrow her tactics. I don't think lorrie Goldstein or TV carpenter guy would appreciate it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Um, no, I wouldn't try to pattern myself after Rachel. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy what she writes from time to time.

BTW, I'm not sure if this particular column actually made it into MSM. It appears in her blog, but I didn't see it in the Sun. Maybe they thought it was too controversial. Hey! Somebody should email her and find out!

jdave34 said...


It's not so much controversial, as dumb. If I were an editor, I wouldn't have run it.

She doesn't make a point, choosing instead to try and shock us with her anti-PC, inflammatory rhetoric.

The problem is, none of it is original. You can hear the same type of bullshit on 10 different channels, 30 different radio stations, and 10,000 websites.

She's neither original, nor daring. Her comments are dumb, and it's obvious that she's trying to outrage people, rather than inform or present an opinion.

I find it kind of sad that on a regular basis, you promote her site and writing as if it's some sort of shining example of what Conservative bloggers should be aspiring to.

Oh well, to each their own. If the best the conservatives have is a borderline-sociopath with a history of stalking and ruining peoples' lives, then the Liberal side isn't in as much trouble as I thought.

just be aware, that everytime you feel compelled to promote this embarrassment to women and conservatives, I will feel compelled to remind your readers of what kind of writer you lookto for inspiration and words of wisdom.

jdave34 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TangoJuliette said...

OK jdave:

Thnx for the refresher. That was about the time I was coming back from a couple of strokes, so the memory bank has as many holes in it as does a wheel of good Swiss Cheese. Starting to feel a lot like HAL about to break into a kiddy song.

I remeber some of this stuff -- all sketchy and jumbled.

She DOES sound like more than a bit of a whack-o. There seeems to be more to her apparent problem than accusations for cash. It doesn't sound like she really profitted in any way, other than getting her name up in lights, as it were.

As for your painting her out to be a "standard bearer intellectual conservativism", I might think that title to be a little over inflated.

A prominent media-personality writing rather inflamatory and obnoxious articles and books, certainly deserves to have her balloon popped.

She does get off a good shot once in a while, but this last thing sounds very much like something I heard from a prominent mover and shaker within a political party machine where this sort of stuff is least expected. It was all nicely turned and phrased, to make their opponent's party look vile, but the telling made the teller look that way as well.

Basically mocking the red-neck religious cracker and a definition of paradise.

"That'd be where we got us one race of unliked peoples swimming back to their homeland with another race of unliked peoples on their backs."

There are a number of self-appointed spokespersons for the left as well, that don't give the right a lot of sleepless nights neither, but they too, on ocassion, manage to pull off some good lines.

forgive the typos, errors and ommissions.

TangoJuliette said...

Just a thot. Maybe Marsden's problem has a lot to do with the fact that the natural governing party of Canada failed her in her youth by not providing her family with the option of an all-inclusive National Day Care Program.

I gather that Marsden is looking to sue the government over this.

Well, actually the Liberals will be named in the suit. They claim to have been in charge of this nation for more than 85% of its history.

Think she's got a shot at that? Could this go "class action?"

I'm hopin'!!

jdave34 said...


Whether the Liberals failed her or not, Rachel will be more than happy to accuse them. It's her MO.

Don't be surprised when Rachel writes a column detailing how the entire Liberal caucus gang-raped her while Belinda Stronach took pictures.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. I just found out where this column was published.

FrontPage magazine

That might explain it.

jdave34 said...


It certainly does explain it.

Any website where the featured writer defends Ann Coulter's attacks on the victims of 9-11 is certainly a first class publication.

classy classy classy.

George said...

To liberal supporter:

Rachel is not trying to help Harper and the Conservatives, she hates him and the Party because she was blacklisted from working on the Hill due to her serial stalking as described above.

jdave34 said...


"she was blacklisted from working on the Hill due to her serial stalking as described above."

Well thank god FoxNews doesn't worry about stupid little things like standards....

liberal supporter said...

Thanks George, I just assumed she supports Stephen, because she acts a lot like Ann Coulter who supports any conservative, simply because they are conservative (though I think Coulter is now faulting George for not being conservative enough)

PGP said...

When you cut away the BS sometimes there is truth.

The whole concept of PC in language thought or deed is BS.

But Is Marsden out for anything but attention?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

PGP - Yeah, my opinion of Marsden has had it's ups and downs; lately more downs.

wbqbch said...

so I guess that if someone says something stupid then everything they say after invalid? OK then all of Al Gore's climate change talk is all bull. Glad that's cleared up.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

wbqbch - Personally, no, I don't believe that. I take every comment and editorial on its own merit. In fact, I have championed Rachel Marsden here in the past.

I just haven't heard the word "Indian" for a while. I thought that went out with "Negro".

Mac said...

Any website where the featured writer defends Ann Coulter's attacks on the victims of 9-11 is certainly a first class publication.

Are you referring to Coulter's latest book where she took a shot at the Jersey Girls, a small group of widows whose husbands were killed in 9-11 but who managed to overcome their grief long enough to support John Kerry's run for presidency and issue strong anti-Bush statements?

It's amazing how many lefties take umbrage with Coulter without having read her books. Have you read anything Coulter has written, jdave34 or are you basing your opinion on media reports?

TangoJuliette said...

Hello Joanne T Blue:

What a hornets' nest we've opened! It seems that only the left has the divine right of kings on their side. Their big shooters can say, do and twist whatever they want and get away with it. Heck, it seems that they think that they can even "do" whoever they want, and get away with it.

I've gone through a number of her writings that contain fragments of your original quote, but given the context of the overall piece written, it doesn't seem as offensive as it appears at first glance.

As for the word "Indian" being out of use, may I present: "Department of Indian Affairs."

As well, Prof. Jean Becker, at St. Paul's College, University of Waterloo, in a seris of questions which I put to her about one year ago, as part of my background research for a book project.

She contends that the descendants of those early inhabitants of what they called Turtle Island at the putative time immediately before "first contact with Europeans" circa. 1491, today prefer the term "Indian" when describing themselves.

Prof. Becker is a First Nations female, teaching courses in Native Studies.

She's right up there in my books, along with Willie Dunne, Jim Logan, Charlie Copenace, Marvin Rainwater, Lawrence Yuxweluptan, Dr. Olive Patricia Dickason and so on.

As for Rachel, well, whatever her flaws of personality, she still drives a mean stake into the hearts of pompous pseudo progressive blowhards, who delight in taking their marching orders from Defeatist-Democrat pretenders to (false) internet discovery claims. Sounds very Russian-like to me. "Vee Arrr Greatest of all!! Vee invent all t'ings, vee are brilliant creators and originators of every good t'ing for de lowest humanz! DA!!"

Now jdave, if it were Rachel's Dad claiming to have been gang-thumped by the liberal caucus, that might prove a bit more believable. As for billionaress Belinda snapping photos? Not too likely. She's probably running around with daddy keeping unions out of their shops, and teaching Slick Willy C a new trick or two with fine cuban cigars.

TangoJuliette said...

'Any website where the featured writer defends Ann Coulter's attacks on the victims of 9-11 is certainly a first class publication."

Seems almost as bad (I said: ALMOST as bad) as our past liberal prime miniwters ignoring the whole hole in the ground at WTC.

Hellloooo "Pot."

Howdy "Kettle."

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Great comments, Tango. Thanks for reminding me about the Dept. of Indian Affairs. Well, maybe Rachel's comments weren't as offensive as I first thought.

Writing a book, are you? Good for you.

Anonymous said...

Marsden information for those who don't know her past! She told lie upon lie, had an innocent man fired, and a Canadian university full of ideological hate mongers circled the wagons to cover up for her until basically entire Canadian society demanded the truth. The innocent man was reinstated with back pay, legal costs and monetary compensation also provided.

See some of the stories below and get very sick seeing how women are automatically given "victim" status and special treatment! Is this what equality means today?