Some links over time have been memory-holed. My. apologies.
Mark Holland is NOT a leader. (memory-holed)
“…When people decide to respect you as a leader, they observe what you do so they can know who you really are.
People then use this observation to tell if you are an honorable and trusted leader, or a self-serving person who misuses authority. …”
These people are leaders:
Garry Breitkreuz, Candice Hoeppner, Brent Rathgeber, Shelly Glover, Phil McColeman, Rick Norlock and Dave MacKenzie.
We can include those MP’s that stood and chose not to side with Mr. Holland and voted not to kill Bill C-391.
The list of leaders isn’t complete without the person that leads Canadians, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
From the “Mark Holland is NOT a leader” link:
“…Putting aside rights and freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism is dangerous, said Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland.
“When that happens, you risk doing serious damage to the things that supposedly democracies are all about,” he said.
“And that’s the right not to be unfairly accused or detained, or have your name destroyed without the opportunity of protecting yourself.” …”
When I read the above quote? I am compelled to point out that Mr. Holland’s disruptive behaviour and assorted antics when MP Garry Breitkreuz was chairing SECU C-391 hearings/meetings (I’ll toss in the Maria Mouraini hysterics, during a hearing, with a picture of and subsequent haranguing of Professor Gary Mauser and the later repeating of the drama on the floor of the House during her remarks prior to the September 22 motion vote, which was a flagrant violation of House rules).
History shows the snake oil sales pitchs by elected representatives, media (many stories with erronous, sensationalized and remained uncorrected as well as the “interesting” timing of many anti-gun programs and stories that coincided with key votes and hearings), foreign-influenced (like this admission) anti-gun lobby persona and their “fellow travellers” (foreign-connected or domestic), the use of sweeping, negative, generalizations and propaganda to demonize responsible Canadians whose only “crime” was to own firearms and participate responsibly in a Canadian cultural heritage activity of their free choice. Right down to the municipal level.
History shows the concept that Mr. Holland chooses to hang his style of “leadership” with and his “cause celebre” for advancing within party ranks is not a recently dicussed part of an agenda. A seat in the House gained on the backs of regular citizens. Catching a ride on the Express bus is certainly helpful if one has future “leadership” aspirations.
I’m compelled to further point out his association (Liberal Party et al) who rail against or persecute otherwise through questionable “enforcement” or use of taxpayer-funded resources for political lobbying and even seek to silence the rank and file. Of course, I refer to responsible firearms owners as being the target through a legislative and bureaucratic failure (C-68) or taxpayer-funded participation at events (page 34) that show a bias against the gender commonly accused of (inaccurately) being the perpetrators of violence or paying very little lip-service to one-half of the issue and next to nothing in the way of dealing with the whole problem.
Mr Holland and friends convieniently ignore the “self-defense” solution against the best interests of women. That “NOT a leader” leadership keeps women as victims and denies them the ability to empower themselves. I’m confident the “victim industry” in Canada is grateful and suitably expresses that gratitude when needed by him. CFUW gets involved and their reps will speak out.
Mr. Holland’s “leadership” supports The Firearms Act and it’s flaws, irresponsibly wasteful tax revenue expenditure, unconstitutionality and abusiveness through the continued existence of Criminal Code of Canada Sections 91 and 92.
Mr. Holland claims to be a leader. From the “He does NOT lead by example” link above? We see he talks out both sides of his mouth and practices censorship of private citizen’s dissenting commentary. A rather self-serving style. No?
Some Canadians have a chance, in the near future, to choose a qualified leader.