CBC Brand Justin Trudeau’s Opponents In European Parliament Racist

7
1065

by Brad Salzberg

CAP

March 26, 2022

Canada’s state-funded CBC News has a job to do. In order to justify a billion dollar annual subsidy from the Liberal government, strict adherence to an agenda must be maintained.

The role is basic in conception– condemn as racist all those who criticize Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. As such, there are myriad bases to cover. For example, media’s method of dealing with the Conservative Party of Canada. As the singular threat to Liberal Party domination, media has for the past six years used racist accusations to run down the Conservatives. “The party is anti-niqab,” as if an issue affecting 0.001% of Canadians serves as a barometer for political legitimacy.

Then there are those awful trucker-types. They too are racists. CBC know this because one out of thousands of protestors appearing in Ottawa had been seen holding a swastika flag. Enough said– type up the Truckers Convoy as a promotion of white supremacy.

From Conservatives to Convoy participants. Both dare to critique Justin Trudeau. As such, media corral them into a cattle pen of racist condemnation. Naturally, it would be remiss of CTV, Globe & Mail, National Post and Global News to restrict parameters to those of a Canadian variety.

As reported in international news this week, PM Trudeau was pulverized by members of the European Parliament for his handling of the Truckers Protest in Ottawa. While foreign press pick up on their Trudeau-as-dictator diagnosis, CBC News take an alternative position.

Those who verbally attacked Justin Trudeau are all racists. And far be it for Trudeau-funded CBC to stop there. Have you heard the news? The 705-seat EU Parliament is infused with white supremacy and neo-fascism.

Read More HERE

 

 

 

7 COMMENTS

  1. The headline says that the CBC brands Trudeau’s opponents as racists. The evidence? Here is the only place where the article quotes the CBC.

    “Alternative for Germany is one of the national parties that fall under the Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament. With 63 members from 10 countries, it is the fifth-largest group in the assembly.”

    “Identity and Democracy is made up of domestic political parties opposed to the EU. They hold far-right positions on issues like immigration, EU membership and social welfare. The ID group includes France’s Rassemblement National party, which was founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen.”

    The word racist is never used. What in those two paragraphs is false?

  2. Hey TVGuy Did you read the article. The headline says that the CBC branded Trudeau’s EU opponents as rascist.

    You said “Once again, the CBC demonstrates its own racism in bringing race (and its own obsession with same) into an issue having nothing to do with racism.

    I said there was no evidence to back such a charge. The article quotes two paragraphs from the CBC and there is no mention of race. I asked if anything quoted from the CBC was false?

    Instead of addressing the actual topic you say that I am conveniently ignoring the CBC history.

    1. Does that mean you are acknowledging that this particular article was not being accurate but it doesn’t matter because of the CBC history.?

    2. If this article is making a false claim based on zero evidence then why would anybody believe any historical claim against the CBC unless presented with some evidence,

    By the way in another thread you questioned my use of woke as it pertains to non-liberals. Here is the Merriam Webster definition of woke.
    “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”

    We can ignore the brackets because “especially” doesn’t mean limited to and social justice includes any number of topics including for example vaccine cards and the use of the Emergency Act. So, aware and actively attentive to facts and issues. Here is what you said to me.

    Something you need to realize – face diapers don’t work and neither to the CCP flu “vaccines”. You want to continue believing the lies and propaganda (including the fake numbers) being pushed by John Horgan, Bonnie Henry and their liberal media collaborators without question for the sake of Henry’s CCP flu diktats, that’s on you, but fewer and fewer people believe them now and they’ve said so loud and clear, and it gets under your skin and you don’t like it because it happens to be true.

    Sounds like you are telling me that I’m sleeping and you’re woke.

    I would actually enjoy a serious discussion on any number of topics. Unfortunatley using 99% of the articles linked here are not very helpful.

    • Looks more to me like you’re the one who didn’t bother to read the article yourself (and chose to twist what I said and put your spin on it to try to save face). It doesn’t matter whether or not CBC made false accusations of “racism” against anyone who criticizes GQ Trudeau, the mere implication of such an accusation is enough. The CBC has that history whether you want to admit it or not, and you’re making excuses for them while also denying what they’ve done in recent times.

      BTW, the liberal use of “woke” to refer to themselves when they think themselves “enlightened” on the subjects they support is not only the opposite of what they really are (dulled and stupefied, as I pointed out in another post), it’s also grammatically incorrect. Based on your replies, It’s also evident that despite your claims otherwise, you have no real desire to have any serious conversations and just want to continue shilling for liberal agendas and to attack anyone who correctly criticizes said agendas.

  3. Hey VancouverTVGuy,

    Lot of assumptions in your response. For example, I am not trying to excuse or defend the CBC. I am criticizing the evidence or lack of evidence in the Salzburg article. If we are criticizing the media should we give a free pass to everybody who is doing that criticism.

    Anybody can be blinded by their own personal biases and I include myself in that statement. However, I am starting to understand your point of view after puzzling over this sentence of yours that at first didn’t make sense

    It doesn’t matter whether or not CBC made false accusations of “racism” against anyone who criticizes GQ Trudeau, the mere implication of such an accusation is enough.

    Of course it matters if they did or didn’t but then I realized that for you, it doesn’t matter that they did or didn’t use the exact words like racist; it’s the implication.

    OK where is the implication? Go back to the two paragraphs that Salzburg uses. Is this the offending sentence. “Identity and Democracy is made up of domestic political parties opposed to the EU. They hold far-right positions on issues like immigration, EU membership and social welfare.”

    Did the speakers fit that description? Does alt-right imply racism? Should the CBC have left out those descriptors and leave the implication the speakers were members of centrist parties?
    Is it important to know the background of the speakers to give context to their comments. Don’t infer anything into my questions. They are being asked to promote discussion.

    The only party the CBC mentions in the quote via Salzburg is Alternative for Germany Party. Salzburg doesn’t say and we don’t have the whole CBC article but I believe one of the people who spoke against Trudeau was from Germany. Here is what ADF say about immigration.

    “Former leader Petry said in March 2016: “I’m not against immigration, but … the economic and social consequences of migration on both home and host countries are equally momentous … The immigration of so many Muslims will change our culture.

    It encourages German nationals to have more children, as opposed to trying to boost the German population through foreign migration.

    Now do you want a discussion on Canada’s immigration policy. I am up for that. Do you want a discussion of Trudeau as dictator. I am up for that. I will even share ideas on the role and future of the CBC But honestly, I feel already that I would not be listened to. BTW, my mind isn’t made up. Proof? I actually took the time to figure out what you were saying and researched those EU parties. And note, I gave no opinion on them. Infer what you want.

    Wokeism.

    You seem concerned that woke is ungrammatical. It isn’t. The word is not being used as a verb. It is being used as an adjective. I woke up is different from I am woke. I am woke means – I will use your word – enlightened. Merriam Webster uses aware and attentive to.

    Being woke isn’t a negative but it has become so because and here I agree with you – sometimes people who think they are woke are blind to other points of view. The reason I have called you woke is to poke you into realizing that people from what ever side of the political spectrum can sound exactly like the woke left. Reread what you said to me about masks when I actually didn’t give an opinion about masks except to say that I didn’t care if people still wore them. Seriously, whether you are right or not in your assessment of me, how would you react to someone saying something similar about your point of view. Discussion is shut down. Wokeism at its finest.

    • All that your wall of text (which proves another thing about liberals like you – do a lot of talking but say nothing of substance) tells me is that you’re still making excuses for the CBC (despite your denials otherwise) while you twist my argument, bring up subjects having nothing to do with the main topic (except in your mind), resort to projection and make yourself come across like Sheldon Cooper (and I don’t think I need to explain the type of character he was).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.