It's sad. "He got an OC for advancing unpopular ideas. And I'm advancing unpopular ideas. Why shouldn't I get one too?"
It's the intellectual equivalent of a cargo cult.
It's bad enough that we have to put up with everyday Catholics, but those "stealth" Catholics and crypto-Catholics are really scary. 
Well, since members of the Order include priests and nuns and Maude knows what other diverse characters, I would agree that the selection committee is already doing a reputable job of reflecting our society. Since they reflect "minority" views, they're actually over-represented.
I rather like "stealth Catholic." Admit it, Peter, you do too. : )
Somerville's exposure in public discourse is due to nothing more sophisticated than modern journalism's fetish for balance and the need for "journalists" to manufacture controversy because unearthing genuine controversy through proper investigative reporting is...rilly rilly hard!
Anyway, glad to see she's gone from insulting and demeaning gay people to insulting and demeaning Canadians on the whole.
I think that deserves an Order of Canada. Let's give her one now.
*cackle*
"Most Canadians thought Morgentaler's award was justified."
"She has bravely refused to go along with the pro-choice majority, the same-sex marriage majority, the majority that almost inevitably stands on the opposite moral shore from her own."
An observation:
True majorities, Dawg, or just "a nation of sheep" saying whatever causes the least amount of fuss? Surely it occurred to you that excessive "deference to authority" may also skew the opinions of the proletariat on matters already decided upon by those in power?
If we are "sheep", opinion polls mean nothing and quoting them is useless to bolster one's arguments; if we are not, then one must accept it when, say, a lack of outrage over a particular judicial decision demonstrates that Canadians do not feel as we do and we are tempted to think of them as "sheep".
As for Somerville, I think you are correct that sour grapes is the motivation here. All the blather about the OC is tainted, in my mind, by the fact that she has a dog in this fight.
fergusrush:
I'm old enough to remember (and to have participated in)the fight for freedom of choice in Canada. It was an uphill climb a good deal of the way. Public opinion changed.
It seems a bit elitist to me to dismiss Canadians as "sheep" because of that.
Perhaps I was being too subtle? I was referring to your earlier post and its "deference to authority" theme, and observing how that particular line of thought undercuts the idea of opinion poll majorities.
Maybe I was being too subtle. When the "nation of sheep" was not pro-choice, all that "deference to authority" didn't seem to have much effect over time as we pursued our battle.
I think Canadians are unduly deferential to authority. But they aren't unconscious.
"Back to sleep, my fellow Canadians. Never mind that "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" stuff. That's for dead Romans and weak-kneed leftist bleeding hearts. Those folks in uniform are our friends, upholding law and liberty here and over there."
Your words, Dawg, demonstrating dismay, shall we say, at the lack of concern for something you yourself hold as important. In this case, you think of them as "sheep", or sleepy at the very least. Yet when opinion polls show the "sheep" to be onside with your view of things, they are not "unconscious" but aware enough to offer opinions that may be quoted as evidence of your argument's superiority. I don't think you can have it both ways.
Sorry, I meant to say " I don't think one can have it both ways".
fergusrush:
Remedial reading instruction, perhaps?
As I said in an earlier post, Canadians are all too deferential to authority, particularly when uniforms are involved.
But no one, in a uniform or without one, ordered Canadians to be pro-choice.
Frankly, you're making no sense whatsoever.
I rather like "stealth Catholic." Admit it, Peter, you do too.
Indeed, it conveys just the right combination of subterfuge and paranoia.
Stealth Catholics to the left, crypto-Catholics to the right, but still Dr. Dawg stood firm.
"But no one, in a uniform or without one, ordered Canadians to be pro-choice."
Who said they did?
"Frankly, you're making no sense whatsoever."
It's simple: You call Canadians "sheep" in an earlier post for reasons explained there. You assert, in this post, that Somerville is constantly on the wrong side of the majority opinion in Canada regarding social issues. I am stating my opinion that if you really believe what you said in the earlier "Canadians-are-sheep" post, it undercuts your use of their opinions in making your case against Somerville.
It's not that difficult, is it?
Perhaps too difficult for you.
Deference to uniforms (which was what my earlier post was all about) has no bearing on the forming of all majority opinion in Canada on every subject at all times.
Apples.
Oranges.
Geddit?
Fergus: if the example cases in Dawg's earlier case were made the subject of an opinion poll, do you think that the majority of Canadians would respond with "Yes, justice was served"?
Equating polling data with "lack of outrage" is the real flaw in your comparison.
Absolutely, Dawg. But, you see, I took your earlier post to be a condemnation of Canadian attitudes to the judicial decisions regarding the police officers in question, not the attitudes of Canadians to police officers in general. An easy mistake to make, I submit, because of the time you spent regaling us with the details of light sentences and appeals and so on.
Maybe there's some population survey out there that can provide a more scientific basis for discussing how deferential Canadians are.
Fergus, you didn't take exception to Dawg's characterisation of Canadians as sheep back when he made it.
I wanted to, but then my sciatica flared up.
fergusrush:
I was referring, of course, to judicial deference to police in that case.
I write clearly. You just don't read clearly.
Equating polling data with "lack of outrage" is the real flaw in your comparison."
I agree, Adam, that the two things are not equal, but, in many cases, the polling data are the only measurable indications.
And, no, I do not think Canadians, if polled, would say that justice was served.
Despite appearances, I'm not trying to get under Dawg's skin here: the observation I am making is just something that occurred to me when I read this current post and happened to recall the earlier one. The idea that someone could hold both views struck me as incongruous. I should have used one of the smiley things right then and there.
"I write clearly. You just don't read clearly."
That may well be, Dawg, but you didn't accuse only judges of deference but the nation as a whole. I don't know about you, but I'm no judge. 
The idea that someone could hold both views struck me as incongruous.
Obviously today I have too much time on my hands.
"Both views?" What views would those be?
Canadians are too deferential to authority. But that doesn't mean that Canadian majorities hold all of their views out of deference, nor that minorities should defer to them. Nor, in fact, that all Canadians defer to authority. I don't.
Nor do I expect Margo to defer simply because she holds minority views. I was drawing attention to the fact that she evidently believes she was passed over in error, and she has struck a certain implicitly martyr-like pose in her article.
I'm outta here until more content appears. Sheesh.
"Fergus, you didn't take exception to Dawg's characterisation of Canadians as sheep back when he made it."
True enough, Ti-guy, but I was packing to go away for a few days of summer stuff at the time.
No sciatica here, just bruised ribs from wrestling with sons who are now too damned strong for me to be doing such things with. Old dog's and all that.
Commenting by HaloScan
