Hedy Fry vs. "Lord of the Ring"


By:  Rachel Marsden


VANCOUVER, BC - While visiting friends and family in the Vancouver area over the holidays, I’ve been checking out the political race in Vancouver Centre between Liberal Hedy “Blazing Crosses” Fry and the NDP’s Svend “Lord of the Ring” Robinson.


Here’s my take on how these political grandes dames measure up:


Responsiveness:  While Fry answered all my questions, Robinson has avoided me like the plague, despite my request to “steal a few minutes of his time”.


Campaign offices:  Robinson’s brochure table featured campaign buttons with a mugshot.  At first, I thought it was Robinson’s, from when he was charged with “unconventionally shopping” for a diamond ring.  Then I realized that it was BC Premier Gordon Campbell’s from his drunk driving shenanigans.  I would advise Robinson to ditch all mugshot references from the campaign office.  You’re not the chief of police.


I asked Fry’s campaign manager what sort of feedback he was getting from the gay community—18% of voters in this area, and arguably the largest proportion of any district in Canada.  He said that those over 50 are appalled by Robinson’s theft (although I wonder how they feel about Liberal AdScam thievery), and that those under 50 say that Robinson is parachuting into the riding and taking the gay community for granted.


Campaign literature:  Fry’s focuses almost exclusively on local projects and issues.  Robinson needs to bring a change of outfits to his brochure shoot next time, so it doesn’t look like he spent just one afternoon seeking out certain people (ie. handicapped, gay, black, child, senior, female) with whom to get his picture taken.


Crime:  Fry—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—says that “no direct link has been established between gun crimes and immigration”.  Maybe if police could report an accurate suspect description without being called racist, then we would have some solid data related to crime and immigration.  I’d vote for Fry on this issue alone—because if she’s re-elected, then there’s zero possibility that she’ll be working as an airport screener, dealing with the non-correlation between Arabs and terrorism.


On Fry’s website, the “justice” section deals with one issue--gay marriage--because, of course, that’s the biggest justice concern facing Canadians today.  Robinson’s literature claims that he will “crack down on gun crimes and organized crime, including white collar crime”, but reserves even tougher language for the “threat of private, American-style for-profit corporations to medicare”.  No word on thievery.


Fry likes the idea of the $8 million government-funded free heroin for junkies.  Robinson calls safe injection sites a “crime prevention strategy”.  So when can sex addicts expect a push from lefties for free, government-approved hookers and, er,“safe injection” hotels to cut down on the spread of disease?  Or is the Left now discriminating against certain addictions?


Immigration:  Fry “would like to see increased resources for processing temporary visa and citizenship applications” and “would like to examine the feasibility of increasing private sponsorships for refugees.”  Speed up immigration?  I think the Left already has enough security certificates to protest for the time being.  How about getting hospital wait times for our current citizens under control first?  Robinson’s campaign doesn’t address immigration, but in fairness, his literature does say that he’s big on human rights, arts, and the CBC.  Whatever.  That’s great if you’re “Piss Christ”.


Iraq:  Fry calls the democratic elections in Iraq “a hopeful first step”.  No word as to whether or not Robinson feels Iraq’s freedom and democracy would be worth taking another rubber bullet in the butt, like he did at an anti-globalization protest.  But being a fan of Iraqi democracy would mean having to give mad props to George W. Bush for liberating the Iraqi people.  Oh, what to do!


Whatever happens between these two on election day, Canadians will have reason to celebrate—because at least one of them has to lose.