As a person in politics, I believe in holding my opponents accountable just as much as the next person. However, I do not believe in destroying a person's reputation unless that person deserves it.Anyone who's read Cherniak's drivel for any length of time, knows that Cherniak aspires to nothing less than being a political hit man. In fact, in his zeal to destroy people's reputations he has been forced to retract and apologize numerous times on his blog. He will smear anybody and anything if he thinks it will further the Liberal cause. He lives for the least bit of approval from such hired guns as Kinsella. Just from recent memory you might recall Frank Klees is a member of the Orange Order, Tory Staffer Valentin Erikson, accusing Conservatives of stealing a stock photo from a porn website.
And then of course there was the little incident of stirring up a shit storm against my MPP, a smear incidentally for which Cherniak has never apologized nor has retracted. Worse, after being inundated with criticism from all sides, Cherniak, in a legendary bout of self delusion, actually believed he was the one being smeared. In that utterly absurd smear, not only were comments deliberately misread and misrepresented to portray the Reverend Doctor as an advocate of ordination for "pedophiles & axe murders", and defender of serial killers, but also Cherniak, Kinsella, Bowie, and the Ontario Liberals reached back over 40 years in time to when this woman was a teen on the streets of Yorkville to smear her reputation, a part of her history which she never denied.
So Cherniak you insolent little man, where do you get the temerity to suggest that we turn away from vile, hateful remarks made by a 40 year old man 17 years ago, yet haven't the least bit of compunction about engaging in a smear going back 40 years to attack a 17 year old teenager? Which scenario do you think holds out greater hope for change? Perhaps go back to your scurrilous posts and read in the comments something about forgiveness, a theological concept which you deploy with an incompetency matched only by your cynical zealotry.
You see, the truth is that what Cherniak really meant to say was "I do not believe in destroying another person's reputation unless it somehow benefits the Liberals or somehow advances my esteem within that party." What do all of you believe Cherniak would have done with the tape had he found it?
Speaking of which, and very briefly. Knowing full well that had the Liberals or Conservatives had in their grimy little hands such damaging evidence they would have deployed it in a heartbeat, there's admittedly a dark part of me that takes pleasure in what has unfolded. However, ethically I don't advocate this as a political tactic nor do I think Tom Lukiwski should be forced to resign. After all, he was speaking the truth of his party and has remained faithful to that truth.
Still, those were hateful, vile remarks and he and his party should be held accountable and at the very least be forced to own those odious comments. For as long as we have people who, as one Conservative caller did yesterday on a radio talk show, question what on earth Lukiwski has to apologize about, then clearly this is not about the past but about the present. And while I don't believe Lukiwki's apology to be as contrite, genuine, or abject, as many have portrayed it (it was a typical self-serving political apology), I do think it is important for Canadians, and in particular, Conservatives, to hear from Tom Kukiwski himself. He said commendably:
"The comments I made . . . should not be tolerated in any society," ...They should not be tolerated today, they should not have been tolerated in 1991, they should not have been tolerated in years previous to that."