Flynn, Brock and Friends
The Canadian political blogosphere is not a big place. We have very few blogs that are updated regularly and read by fellow bloggers, so when even a minor ripple goes through the blogosphere, it tends to be felt by everybody.

Now Flynn, formerly Simon, has gotten into some hot water with the conservative wing of the blogs. Being a member of the Conservative Party, I do not disassociate myself from these conservative bloggers. I don't mind disagreeing with them, and I am unconcerned about whether we all come to a consensus on anything. I find the most important thing I can find in a blog, is if it makes me reconsider my previous positions or ideas. That is key: Can we challenge each other?

The whole thing really started when Brock noted that some Americans were coming north and that he didn't appreciate the type of potential refugees that would be moving to the true north. Flynn took this to mean that Brock was objecting to 'homosexuals' moving north, and promptly took issue. I can't find the link for Flynn's site.

So two things stick out:
1) First of all, Brock has repeatedly and erroneously quoted the potential Americans immigrants as 'Refugees', which is completely wrong and he has not corrected nor responded to this obvious error despite numerous challenges.
2) Flynn immediately jumped on this as being intolerant toward gays. Honestly, I really looked at Brock's post and couldn't find anything specifically about gays, nor intolerance towards them. I live in the Westend of Vancouver, so I count myself as pretty sensitive to that kind of thing. (No I am not gay, I have a great girlfriend).

I am guilty of writing things that might be wrong, insensitive, stupid often with spelling and grammatical errors, so I am not trying to seem above the fray. I'm at the bottom of it. I guess the main thing I am noticing and this is across the board (and on my part too), is a deterioration of the tone we use in criticism. I believe that while Kinsella was way off base to threaten myself and others, I can honestly say that my criticism of him was probably unfair. My tone towards Monger and Sean from Polspy a while ago was far too sneering (but only in response to some poor sportsmanship on their side).

It is true that Flynn is using terms like "American Taliban" to describe the US administration, and Robert McClelland uses a similar treatment. They both have interesting points to make, but their use of language makes it harder for others to read and digest those points when the dialogue heads in that direction. Yesterday I made unqualified slurs against the French, so I am not trying to say I am not guilty--I am. I guess what I am thinking is that we have to adjust our tone and try to stick to battling the issues rather than the people who take a side on an issue--Myself included.

Otherwise, we are no better than those total bastards, the French. Kidding, kidding.