En effet, le magma de cancrelats qui n’en finissent pas de grouiller chez le père Hétu est du même acabit. Il suffit ce matin de lire la prose débilitante de Lizzie, la psycho-queen de Laval, de l’Écornifleur condescendant Atzilut, dans son rôle de self-hating Jew de service et des pro-islamistes Mozart et Lao, pour s’en rendre compte.
Leurs propos ne sont qu’une réminiscence d’Adrien Arcand mâtiné de Takik Ramadam.
Et le père Hétu d’en remettre!… et d’effacer abruptement les commentaires qui mettent en doute son honnêteté intellectuelle.
Vous faites petit garçon en culotte courte de venir sur un tiers blogue bavasser ce qui se passe chez le voisin. Ici sur Antagoniste, vous pleurnichez sur l’épaule à maman.
@David
Je profite de ce commentaire pour vous féliciter de l’humour que vous avez manifester sur le commentaire du panneau de circulation qui met en garde contre les prostituées. Vous m’avez fait rire.
Moi, je n’écoute plus que la radio américaine… la rectitude politique, la bienpensance, la pensée unique et surtout, l’émasculation (moumounisation) totale des média québécois, moi, je n’en peux plus.
Une chance qu’il y a maintenant des blogues alternatifs qui commencent a contester la propagande étato-fémino-syndicalo-postmoderniste québécoise.
C’est une « réplique » à la psycho-queen de Laval qui a fait un copier-coller d’une intervention sur le présent site de Michael Laughrea sur le blogue du père Hétu, uniquement pour jeter du discrédit sur le présent blogue et en dévoilant l’identité de l’auteur de ces lignes. En fait de bavassage, cette dame remporte la palme d’or toutes catégories confondues. Et ce n’est pas du pleurnichage que de se révolter du fait que le père Hétu tolère du dévoilage d’identité (incluant le statut matrimonial de l’auteur de ces lignes) à des fins d’intimidation.
Par ailleurs, le père Hétu ne laisse plus passer mes messages. Ce n’est pas pleurnicher que de dénoncer un état de fait.
Vous devriez le savoir, letight, qu’un bonhomme de gauche comme Hétu manque d’éthique professionnelle et qu’il n’est qu’un cheer-leader de Hussein Obama. Ça ne m’étonnerait même pas qu’il soit récipiendaire de quelques grasses subventions du Parti Démocrate.
Un commentateur britannique de gauche (et très de gauche), et j’ai nommé Robert Fisk lui-même (du INDEPENDENT), s’est insurgé contre le traitement que l’Université d’Ottawa a fait subir à Ann Coulter dernièrement.
Évidemment, jamais le père Hétu ne publiera ce qui suit de peur d’offenser ses sycophantes et autres sangsues de service car il s’en mordrait les doigts.
Voici ce texte (par Mark Steyn):
Robert Fisk, my former colleague at London’s Independent, is no fan of mine, nor of Ann Coulter, but he chanced to be in Ottawa last week and even a « major British lefty wanker » can’t stomach a pussified culture of « safe, positive spaces ».
First, he attends to the Provost:
So let’s take a look at the preposterous M. Houle. In an email to Coulter – why he couldn’t write a proper letter, I have no idea – he quoth: « I hereby encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. » Note here the linguistic giveaways. « Hereby » – indeed! Houle, the legalistic town crier. Then « to educate yourself » – the implication, of course, is that Coulter is a drop-out. « Inappropriate. » Oh my God, yes, we’ve got to behave in an « appropriate » way, haven’t we, in our nice happy-clappy liberal society? And then the killer: « criminal charges ». Yup, M. Houle is a thought-policeman. « ‘Criminal », mark you. Wow!
Congratulations, Alan Rock! Your hack Provost is now a laughingstock not just nationally, and continentally, but transatlantically. Next, Fisky gets to the students:
A second-year sociology and women’s studies student, Rita Valerino, was widely – and rightly – quoted for the following jargon-based nonsense. « I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable and we promise our students here at the University of Ottawa a safe, positive space. »
Aaaaagh! Talk about an anthropological pit, this was as twee as you could get. « Certain groups », eh? Muslims, perhaps? So why not say so? « Unsafe »? « Uncomfortable »? You mean that Muslims can’t stand up for themselves? And then there is the clincher: « a safe, positive space ». Yes, we all want to live in a « positive space », don’t we? Time and space. Private space. Political space. I read this twaddle over and over again. And when I hear the word ‘ »space », I put my medium bomber squadron on alert to defend the English language…
You go, lefty Islamo-appeasing girlfriend! Then, from Alan Rock’s crappy faculty and jargon-paralyzed students, Fisky turns his attention to the big picture, and where the rot really starts:
Over the past week, the Canadian press, while piously rejecting Coulter’s ravings, has been asking whether Muslims are the only protected species on planet Canada. And, more to the point, questioning the provisions of human rights legislation in Canada’s provinces which dispense with the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As one Ontario professor complained, « To human rights types, the political right has no right… What you say might cause offence, and we can’t have that. »
Robert Fisk joins a long line of international lefties who cannot stomach Canada’s sissified pantywaist restrictions on public discourse. I noted the difference over a year ago apropos John Miller, Ryerson journalism professor and self-taught ovine fornication expert:
I have left-wing critics all over the world – Johann Hari at The Independent in London, Glenn Greenwald at Salon in America, Phillip Adams at The Australian – who often say how repellent and disgusting I am. Had you done that, I’d have said pip-pip and bottoms up, and that’d be that. However, you’re the only one who’s attempted to intervene in a legal proceeding on behalf of the plaintiffs to argue in favour of the government’s right to censor my opinions.
When even Robert Fisk thinks you’re a joke, maybe it’s time to wise up. But the Canadian left still doesn’t get it. The same day Mister Robert opens up on M Houle’s nancy-boy totalitarianism, Haroon Siddiqui in The Toronto Star flies into a lather about the Quebec government’s hostility to the niqab, even if it is « a symbol of oppression » forced on Muslim women by their menfolk:
Let’s assume that it is. Whose business is it to end the practice – that of the state?
Not surprisingly, Scaramouche fell around laughing at this point. This is the same Haroon Siddiqui who’s spent the last two years arguing that it’s certainly the business of the state to end the practice of Maclean’s carrying Mark Steyn columns. Even by the standards of Toronto Star columnists, Siddiqui seems particularly obtuse as to where the logic of his entire oeuvre leads: If the state has the right to tell you what you can write and say and think, it certainly has the right to tell you what you can wear.
And even Robert Fisk recognizes that a land designed by the likes of Mr Siddiqui, M Houle, Chief Commissar Jennifer Lynch, QC, Commissar Barbara Hall and Commissar Heather MacNaughton is not one any sentient being could stomach for more than 20 minutes.
En effet, le magma de cancrelats qui n’en finissent pas de grouiller chez le père Hétu est du même acabit. Il suffit ce matin de lire la prose débilitante de Lizzie, la psycho-queen de Laval, de l’Écornifleur condescendant Atzilut, dans son rôle de self-hating Jew de service et des pro-islamistes Mozart et Lao, pour s’en rendre compte.
Leurs propos ne sont qu’une réminiscence d’Adrien Arcand mâtiné de Takik Ramadam.
Et le père Hétu d’en remettre!… et d’effacer abruptement les commentaires qui mettent en doute son honnêteté intellectuelle.
Un autre Hétutistan est devenir: le blogue de Jean-François Lisée.
@pouloutine
Vous faites petit garçon en culotte courte de venir sur un tiers blogue bavasser ce qui se passe chez le voisin. Ici sur Antagoniste, vous pleurnichez sur l’épaule à maman.
@David
Je profite de ce commentaire pour vous féliciter de l’humour que vous avez manifester sur le commentaire du panneau de circulation qui met en garde contre les prostituées. Vous m’avez fait rire.
Moi, je n’écoute plus que la radio américaine… la rectitude politique, la bienpensance, la pensée unique et surtout, l’émasculation (moumounisation) totale des média québécois, moi, je n’en peux plus.
Une chance qu’il y a maintenant des blogues alternatifs qui commencent a contester la propagande étato-fémino-syndicalo-postmoderniste québécoise.
Letight,
C’est une « réplique » à la psycho-queen de Laval qui a fait un copier-coller d’une intervention sur le présent site de Michael Laughrea sur le blogue du père Hétu, uniquement pour jeter du discrédit sur le présent blogue et en dévoilant l’identité de l’auteur de ces lignes. En fait de bavassage, cette dame remporte la palme d’or toutes catégories confondues. Et ce n’est pas du pleurnichage que de se révolter du fait que le père Hétu tolère du dévoilage d’identité (incluant le statut matrimonial de l’auteur de ces lignes) à des fins d’intimidation.
Par ailleurs, le père Hétu ne laisse plus passer mes messages. Ce n’est pas pleurnicher que de dénoncer un état de fait.
Vous devriez le savoir, letight, qu’un bonhomme de gauche comme Hétu manque d’éthique professionnelle et qu’il n’est qu’un cheer-leader de Hussein Obama. Ça ne m’étonnerait même pas qu’il soit récipiendaire de quelques grasses subventions du Parti Démocrate.
Un commentateur britannique de gauche (et très de gauche), et j’ai nommé Robert Fisk lui-même (du INDEPENDENT), s’est insurgé contre le traitement que l’Université d’Ottawa a fait subir à Ann Coulter dernièrement.
Évidemment, jamais le père Hétu ne publiera ce qui suit de peur d’offenser ses sycophantes et autres sangsues de service car il s’en mordrait les doigts.
Voici ce texte (par Mark Steyn):
Robert Fisk, my former colleague at London’s Independent, is no fan of mine, nor of Ann Coulter, but he chanced to be in Ottawa last week and even a « major British lefty wanker » can’t stomach a pussified culture of « safe, positive spaces ».
First, he attends to the Provost:
So let’s take a look at the preposterous M. Houle. In an email to Coulter – why he couldn’t write a proper letter, I have no idea – he quoth: « I hereby encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. » Note here the linguistic giveaways. « Hereby » – indeed! Houle, the legalistic town crier. Then « to educate yourself » – the implication, of course, is that Coulter is a drop-out. « Inappropriate. » Oh my God, yes, we’ve got to behave in an « appropriate » way, haven’t we, in our nice happy-clappy liberal society? And then the killer: « criminal charges ». Yup, M. Houle is a thought-policeman. « ‘Criminal », mark you. Wow!
Congratulations, Alan Rock! Your hack Provost is now a laughingstock not just nationally, and continentally, but transatlantically. Next, Fisky gets to the students:
A second-year sociology and women’s studies student, Rita Valerino, was widely – and rightly – quoted for the following jargon-based nonsense. « I was just worried that things were going to be said about certain groups of people that were going to make them feel very unsafe and very uncomfortable and we promise our students here at the University of Ottawa a safe, positive space. »
Aaaaagh! Talk about an anthropological pit, this was as twee as you could get. « Certain groups », eh? Muslims, perhaps? So why not say so? « Unsafe »? « Uncomfortable »? You mean that Muslims can’t stand up for themselves? And then there is the clincher: « a safe, positive space ». Yes, we all want to live in a « positive space », don’t we? Time and space. Private space. Political space. I read this twaddle over and over again. And when I hear the word ‘ »space », I put my medium bomber squadron on alert to defend the English language…
You go, lefty Islamo-appeasing girlfriend! Then, from Alan Rock’s crappy faculty and jargon-paralyzed students, Fisky turns his attention to the big picture, and where the rot really starts:
Over the past week, the Canadian press, while piously rejecting Coulter’s ravings, has been asking whether Muslims are the only protected species on planet Canada. And, more to the point, questioning the provisions of human rights legislation in Canada’s provinces which dispense with the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As one Ontario professor complained, « To human rights types, the political right has no right… What you say might cause offence, and we can’t have that. »
Robert Fisk joins a long line of international lefties who cannot stomach Canada’s sissified pantywaist restrictions on public discourse. I noted the difference over a year ago apropos John Miller, Ryerson journalism professor and self-taught ovine fornication expert:
I have left-wing critics all over the world – Johann Hari at The Independent in London, Glenn Greenwald at Salon in America, Phillip Adams at The Australian – who often say how repellent and disgusting I am. Had you done that, I’d have said pip-pip and bottoms up, and that’d be that. However, you’re the only one who’s attempted to intervene in a legal proceeding on behalf of the plaintiffs to argue in favour of the government’s right to censor my opinions.
When even Robert Fisk thinks you’re a joke, maybe it’s time to wise up. But the Canadian left still doesn’t get it. The same day Mister Robert opens up on M Houle’s nancy-boy totalitarianism, Haroon Siddiqui in The Toronto Star flies into a lather about the Quebec government’s hostility to the niqab, even if it is « a symbol of oppression » forced on Muslim women by their menfolk:
Let’s assume that it is. Whose business is it to end the practice – that of the state?
Not surprisingly, Scaramouche fell around laughing at this point. This is the same Haroon Siddiqui who’s spent the last two years arguing that it’s certainly the business of the state to end the practice of Maclean’s carrying Mark Steyn columns. Even by the standards of Toronto Star columnists, Siddiqui seems particularly obtuse as to where the logic of his entire oeuvre leads: If the state has the right to tell you what you can write and say and think, it certainly has the right to tell you what you can wear.
And even Robert Fisk recognizes that a land designed by the likes of Mr Siddiqui, M Houle, Chief Commissar Jennifer Lynch, QC, Commissar Barbara Hall and Commissar Heather MacNaughton is not one any sentient being could stomach for more than 20 minutes.