Maybe They’re All At The Donut Shop, Eh?

Snicker:

Hopes for early mass protests in the streets of Ottawa on the eve of Tuesday’s visit by US President George W. Bush fizzled out, as journalists outnumbered demonstrators.

The first demonstration — of Palestinians and sympathisers of the Palestinian cause opposed to Washington’s support of Israel — attracted less than 40 demonstrators.

According to a quick head count by journalists, the protest attracted 39 demonstrators, 42 journalists and television crew members and three police officers.

A second, ostensibly larger, demonstration scheduled for the midst of the evening rush hour — was called by a group calling itself Students Against Bush.

Nobody turned up.

Advertisements

26 Responses to “Maybe They’re All At The Donut Shop, Eh?”

  1. jay Says:

    It probably rained or snowed. That always deters American anarchists and other performance artists who prefer comfort over action.

  2. Lee Says:

    Another Canadian tempest in a teacup.

    You’d think if Bush were really seen as such a “war criminal” by the canadians, that they would have shown more indignation. The only people that appear indignant are the canadian MSM.

  3. Mike M Says:

    I think they’re scared up there. I mean, every nutjob wacko liberal in the USA is promising to move there…do you really think the Canadians want to give them incentive to actually go?

    If anything, I’d expect the Canadians to line up on the border with crosses and pictures of Bush to ward off liberal migrants.

    Now would be a great time to close the borders though…before the journalists can make it back across.

  4. unixdude Says:

    Hey, illegal immigration is a serious matter to Canucks. See this for details:
    http://unixdude.blogspot.com/2004/11/illegal-immigration.html

  5. Sean Kirby Says:

    Will – worst Canada joke ever.

  6. CALIFORNIA YANKEE Says:

    Anti-Bush Protests Fizzle In Canada

    Agence France Presse reports that mass protests on the eve of President Bush’s visit by fizzled out, as journalists outnumbered the demonstrators: A loose coalition of groups opposed to just about everything Bush supports had promised two demonstration…

  7. The Jawa Report Says:

    Barking Moonbats in Canada Alert

    Canadians protesting Bush’s visit. I saw Christmas with the Kranks last Friday, this protest looks much funnier. Go check out the Ravishing Light’s photo essay posted here, here, and here. (via LGF) Ok, I think we all can agree that…

  8. Don Says:

    I doubt they’re at the donut shop-too many carbs or whatever. Maybe they’re having intimate relations with some tofu or organically grown bananas.
    Only nice thing about Ottawa is the War Museum, and I haven’t been there in twentyplus years.

  9. hey Says:

    1: our media is even more leftist than yours… overplays and overstates it

    2: snow.. hahah snow… keeping protesters away? dude, you have no idea what ottawa’s like do you? think -30 or -35 in january… (C or F it doesn’t matter)

    3: alot of the smack is just little brother syndrome

    4: the pols that are anti-american are playing to the leftwing base… 3 (used to be 4) way races round here… conservatives have been making inroads, so the liberals need to play left to shore up enough seats… and they’re in a minority and their coalition (with the leftists) doesn’t even have a majority of votes

    5: we came very very close (little bit of fear and a weak last 10 days of campaigning) to having conservative majority govt, headed by some real hardcore guys (including me and my firends) again its the media playing this up

    6: when we win, we’ll deal with the traitorous leftists, hard

  10. s Says:

    Jay,

    Actually, it was a very mild day for this time of year. Clear sky. Weather was working in their favour.

    Nope. I think the utter futility of ranting against Bush, when he has 4 more years LOCKED-IN, has taken the wind out of many of the lefties sails. šŸ™‚

    p.s. Bush had a great line I heard on Canadian radio today. I’m paraphrasing. He thanked “all the Canadians who waved to him as he arrived – especially the ones who used all FIVE fingers”. heheh. He got a big laugh for that one.

  11. Young Pundit Says:

    Journalists outnumber Anti-Bushies

    Vodkapundit points out that anti-Bush demonstrators were outnumbered by journalists in Canada by a tally of 42-39. I wonder where they all went.

  12. RandMan Says:

    The old lefties used to say “What if they threw a war and nobody came?” I guess these days we can substitute “protest” for “war” in that statement. LOL

  13. Gary Johnston Says:

    Well … then, there were the actual demonstrations of est. 5000 people in Ottawa, of which photos are available on many fine websites.

    If there weren’t more protesters, it might be because they’re busy buying stuff with their increasingly strong dollar. The US dollar is worth 1.19 Canadian, compared to 1.50 when Bush was inaugurated.

  14. Ric Locke Says:

    they’re busy buying stuff with their increasingly strong dollar

    ::FX: deep, sonorous chuckles offstage ::

    Don’tcha just love it when a plan starts coming together?

    Regards,
    Ric Locke

  15. Darren Says:

    Ultimately, ‘as many as 5000 people’ showed up in Ottawa:

    http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/30/bush_arrives041130.html

  16. Carl Says:

    5000? That’s all they could do? With all the pot-smoking Vietnam war-dodging, gay marriage supporting hippie freakos that live in Canada? Man, that was on one street in NY during the Rep convention!

  17. Darren Says:

    I think the majority of Canadians are relatively satisfied with Canada’s recent foreign policy decisions visa vi the US and the Middle East. As such, you’re hardly going to get the average Canuck out to this protest.

    Compare that to the nearly 200,000 Canadians who protested on Feb. 15, 2003, and you can see that the regular folks aren’t particularly put off by Bush’s visit.

  18. Sharpshooter Says:

    Another interesting point about Canada:

    Roger Ebert gave a grudging good review to the new film MICHAEL MOORE HATES
    AMERICA, but rejected claims from the new film that gun-controlled paradise
    Canada could possibly have worse crime than the USA. Ebert now admits he
    was wrong, and concedes Canada’s got twice the crime.

    http://tinylink.com/?wMEOgqWWah
    http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN

    Q. In your Ebert & Roeper review of Michael Wilson’s “Michael Moore Hates America,” you blurted out an erroneous opinion, expressing your doubts about the film’s claim that the Canadian crime rate is double the U.S. rate.

    I checked with http://www.statcan.ca, listed as “the official source for Canadian social and economic statistics and products,” and with the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. The bottom line: These sites agree with Wilson’s assertion that crime in Canada is much worse than in the USA.

    James Elias, Highland Ranch, Colo.

    A. Astonishing. For the year 2003, per 100,000 population, Canada had 8,530 crimes, and the U.S. 4,267. For crimes of violence, 958 vs. 523. For property crimes, 4,275 vs. 3,744. Michael Wilson, director of the film, tells me: “There was originally a comedic segment in the film that attributed this to the proliferation of Tim Horton’s doughnut franchises, but I could not make it work.”

    Of course, it’s hard to link Canada’s brainless gun policy to its soaring
    crime rate since their gun law has been one of the greatest money-wasting
    and ineffective programs in the sad, sick, sorry history of such things. It
    was supposed to be revenue-neutral (license fees would fund the system;)
    instead, it cost a billion dollars and left intact spiraling crime.

    http://tinylink.com/?rpJKaFEiyT
    http://canadaonline.about.com/library/issues/bligunreg.htm

    Our favorite Algorithm here recently recanted as to the notion that a
    circumstantial case must rule out other possibilities in order to be
    effective, contending now that the case can just be overwhelming when too
    much evidence piles up. It’s an interesting argument, but I still disagree.

    Therefore, the fact that virtually every jurisdiction – from Canada, to
    Australia, to England, to New York, and so on – sees an increase in crime
    concurrent with efforts to “control” guns remains less-than proof-positive
    that gun control is a massive crime-production scheme.

    http://tinylink.com/?jsjjQNG5JE
    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

    But I think I’ve seen enough.

    ———————
    Oh, BTW:

    Canada’s GNP is the same as the GNP for “African-Americans” in the US (and, yes, their population numbers are just about equal)

  19. Chris Says:

    Two minutes for elbowing, eh?

  20. Carl Says:

    Sharpshooter, the gun registry cost over TWO BILLION, and has been the biggest waste of damn money, since, well, since the last stupid liberal boondoggle in this god-forsaken leftist country. Handguns have been illegal here since 1932, yet for some strange reason most murders in Canada are committed with handguns. Wonder why??

  21. Darren Says:

    The gun registry is a wasteful debacle, but to say “most murders in Canada are committed with handguns” is inaccurate. As this chart from Stats Canada shows, only about 30% of all homicides involves a firearm. That percentage has been going down for years.

    What I expect you meant is that handguns have become the preferred weapon (scroll down a bit) in shooting homicides, and a preference for shotguns and rifles has declined. So, about 20% of all murders (about 100 per year) are committed with handguns.

    Ultimately, Canada’s homicide rate is extremely low, regardless of method and in decline.

  22. Darren Says:

    Sharpshooter: I’m not sure what period you’re describing for “Canada’s soaring crime rate”. I don’t see any reference to Canada in the 1998 John Lott interview you link to.

    As I’ve already indicated, homicide rates have been in decline since the mid-seventies. As this page indicates, violent and property crime levels have been more or less level for the past five years.

  23. Darren Says:

    Sharpshooter:

    I’m not sure it’s wise to rely on Roger Ebert’s site for stats. If you check that page now, there’s a statement indicating that “the American rates are more than double for violent crime.” Another writer argues that comparing the stats in the two countries is unwise, as “The numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics are for rates per 1,000 ‘charged.’ The Statistics Canada rates quoted are for ‘incidents.’ Incidents in Canada refer to every instance where the police are called or notified, even if they then find no evidence or never lay charges.”

    I gave it a go, anyway. On Canada and the US’s relative crimes, I’m getting different results. Using the US population and the violent crime number in Table 1 in this PDF from the DoJ, I found the US to have 1187 incidents per 100,000. Canada is at 962.8/100,000 and their rate includes homicide, where-as the US rate doesn’t. Adjusting that US number to include homicides increases it to 1196.

    This site provides a handy comparative chart for stats, and their sources are consistently the DoJ and Stats Canada. You’ll find the US exceeds Canada’s per capita total in homicides, robberies, assaults and drug offences. The only category of violent or propety crime I could find where Canada has a higher per capita rate is rape.

  24. Rod Stanton Says:

    Again the MSM gets it wrong. All foreigners do not hate Bush.

  25. SilverLining Says:

    You might or might not see references to this item:
    Lawsuit filed against US President George W. Bush in Vancouver Provincial Court.

    I’m hoping it will be struck down as frivolous and mocked throughout the continent.

    Please remember that although BC drifts left, not so long ago people in the next province over, Alberta, were demonstrating in * favour * of the War on Terror.

  26. SilverLining Says:

    Oops, the URL should not have a “)” at the end.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: