Not A Defence Of Mulcair Aide Paul Dearn

Hey look! It’s not just Conservatives! Other political parties have bad apples too!

Case in point: the federal NDP is taking heat because a senior aide to party leader Tom Mulcair tweeted angry, rude stuff about ex-Pope Benedict a couple of years ago. Mulcair Aide Shawn Dearn’s tweets included F-bombs and lots of anger. Dearn has now apologized and Mulcair has forgiven him, but some still think he should resign. Because clearly, Dearn is just as bad as Conservative candidates who urinate in coffee mugs or mock the disabled.

The people who want Dearn to resign are right. This is exactly the same kind of situation!

Surely the fact that Dearn, incidentally a gay man who, like every LGBTQ person on the planet, has been persecuted by the Catholic church  (which has lobbied governments to block same-sex marriagefought gay-straight alliances in Canadian schools, fired its own gay employees, published homophobic propaganda, and one could Google this shit all day and barely scratch the surface) should never have expressed anger before he held his current political job! He should keep his grievances to himself!

And the fact Dearn was apparently outraged by the Church’s massive molestation scandal? Totally irrelevant! You can’t insult religious leaders just because their organizations have been havens for child rapists!

The goddamn nerve of this fucking guy!

Now, SOME naive souls probably think political leaders could even benefit from advisers who lose their cool over organized homophobia and the sexual abuse of children. What nonsense. No, when Dearn tweeted, “Stop calling the misogynist, homophobic, child-molesting Catholic church a ‘moral authority.’ It’s not,” he sealed his fate.

Bottom line: Dearn is as bad as any Conservative fraudster, election cheater or coffee cup pisser. There’s no moral difference between his sin and theirs. He must resign immediately or the federal NDP will lose all credibility.

Jesus fucking Christ. I can only pray Dearn never tweeted anything as offensive as this:

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees. He's been with Prairie Dog since May 1999 and will die at his keyboard before admitting his career a terrible, terrible mistake.

14 thoughts on “Not A Defence Of Mulcair Aide Paul Dearn”

  1. If the only thing I accomplish at Prairie Dog is destroying my future political career, I’ll die happy.

  2. It’s hard to understand why people who grew up using the internet and all the various ways to be on it can never seem to get their heads around the permanence and retrievability of material they have posted. They of all people should remember that the internet has also closed the distance between the personal life and the public/professional life, and has dramatically increased the consequences for indescretion (real or perceived).

  3. Barb: They just have to wait us old geezers out. Soon, everybody doing anything will have embarrassing Tweets or Facebook posts and it’ll cancel everything out.

    I give it five years and all this furor over people doing stupid things online will seem silly and dated.

    Remember how during the Clinton years the notion that a politician might’ve smoked pot at university was considered a front page scandal? And now everybody’s like, meh.

    Yeah, it’ll be like that.

  4. “indiscretion”.
    I think you’re minimizing the problem, Paul, and if you cast your mind back to the Rob Ford years, your post would have been entirely different.
    I don’t see that racist/sexist/homophobic/harassing/criminal-behaviour Tweets or posts will ever be shrugged off by the public, and I don’t think that penis posts like Mr. Wiener’s will ever count for nothing when considering a person’s fitness for office, public or otherwise. And then there’s the whole issue of cyber-bullying, online luring, hacking and swatting: don’t get me started.
    Of deeper concern — or what should be deeper concern — is the loss of the expectation of privacy, and the inevitable further regulation of the internet. Right now we’re living in a fool’s paradise, where many users think they’re 6′ tall and bulletproof, and that nothing they publish (or that is published about them) for all the world to see in perpetuity will ever come back to bite their asses or have an effect on people they love or for whom they work or hope to work (like Mr. Mulcair, or Ontario Hydro, the voters in Toronto-Danforth, or the citizens of Toronto, period).

    Certainly I can remember the pot smoking thing, and even better, the door that was firmly closed on Nelson Rockefeller as a Republican candidate for President because he was divorced. I can remember when bank tellers had to be men and had to follow a strict dress code (white shirts only) at work. I can remember when having a visible tattoo would disqualify the bearer from retail or restaurant jobs. Yes, mores change, and with them the indicators of less-than-stellar character, but not as across the board as you suggest.

  5. “…a fool’s paradise, where many users think they’re 6′ tall and bulletproof…”

    I believe that’s called “youth.”

    Obviously, if you do genuine evil online it’ll come back to haunt you. Hypocrisy too. That was Ford’s downfall. Hypocrisy and that his apologies were so blatantly insincere.

    He ran as law-and-order, man-of-the-people and yet all this stuff popped up on the internet that exposed the lie.

    And in the end, it didn’t even matter that much. He was an embarrassment but he was also still polling very strongly before bowing out of his last mayoral run.

    What I’m saying is that because everyone will have their own internet skeletons, they’ll grow more discerning about what’s considered scandalous.

  6. Where, I wonder, does “youth” stop? How young is the family-values drum beater who was caught out as a subscriber to a website promoting and facilitating extra-marital affairs?

    Your last paragraph shows rather shaky reasoning on at least 2 counts: first, it assumes that everybody lacks common sense, discretion, and impulse control, and that these are characteristics unworthy of cultivation; second, it completely overlooks the fact that having “their own internet skeletons” clearly has not kept people from pointing the finger, and is unlikely to in future. I do understand that what you’re saying is a variation of “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (much as that reference may gall you), but your appeal to reductionism is both blithe andcounter-intuitive.

  7. In retrospect I should’ve just written, “What’s wrong with telling Pope Benedict to fuck off? His church molested children and persecuted gays. There’s something wrong if you DON’T tell him to fuck off.”

    So many unnecessary words. I’ll learn. Anyway, New Pope is infinitely better.

  8. Actually, Stephen, B-17 didn’t own the Church, and he certainly wasn’t the only leader at whose feet the responsibility lay for clerical sexual abuse; according to the testimony of victims, it went on for decades before he came to office.I give him full credit for stepping aside for someone better equipped by years of pastoral experience to deal with pastoral problems. Scholarship is fine, but there are times when it just doesn’t cut it.

    In the meantime, the internet…

Comments are closed.