Trashy's World Rotating Header Image

Sigh – just another pinko, left-wing, fringe group

After Harpie’s behind-the-scenes rant at the meeting of his faithful lapdogs a couple weeks ago, a few interesting posts have been published, funny editorials have been penned and I’ve had a good belly laugh or two re-watching the vid.

And now,  a FB group has been set up in support of that fringe of fringe groups. Those radicals that care about nothing aside from their silly and far-out agendas… like childcare and health care, for example.

Those freaky, commie lefties called…. WOMEN!


If you’re on FB, join the group. Hell, even though I’m of the testosterone variety, even I joined and may buy a T-shirt when they come available!

I hear T-shirts are coming soon!

I hear T-shirts are coming soon!


Be Sociable, Share!


  1. trashee says:

    @Evolving Squid
    I meant “angry Squid dude…”

  2. trashee says:


    I didn’t put that stuff up to start a debate about court decisions… it was to answer your question about where Stevo refers to the left wing fringe groups.

    BUT – as a divorced guy paying child suppport (but only for another 1 1/2 yrs!)- yeah – i hear ya brother… but your ideas will never fly.

  3. >>to increased child support following an increase in the income of payor spouses, who are predominantly fathers.

    So you could also say that to support such a claim is “anti-men”. I, for one, do not support the idea that child support should be tied to future income. I believe in a fair settlement at the time of divorce, but that’s the end of it. Mom (and it’s usually always mom) shouldn’t be able to suck from Dad’s wallet for the rest of his life. Their life together is over, period. If what dad does in the future is so damned important, then maybe dad should have custody and mom could pay the support. I don’t believe that parents should be on the hook for university either (as lefty judges seem to be implying with recent judgements). Adult children simply should no longer receive child support except by mutual agreement between the parent and child – it shouldn’t matter whether there’s a divorce involved or not.

    In fact, I’d REALLY like to see support laws changed so that the payor pays into a trust fund for the children, rather than paying a cheque to the custodial parent. In that way, the custodial parent can make withdrawals – backed by receipts and documentation – to ensure that the child support goes to support the children, not to support mom in the lifestyle to which she’s become accustomed. I’ll go further and say that the government can oversee it, audit it, and keep everything on the up-and-up. That should make it harder for deadbeat dads to skip out, and much harder for mom to abscond with the money and live as close to queen-like as she can.

    Alternately, if dad’s future income is at risk, so then should mom’s. She gets married again, even common-law then support is cut. Mom’s income goes up, then support is cut. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose, yes? And of course, support is reduced the day each child turns 18.

    I know far too many people who have been burned by ludicrous support orders by lefty judges who are not considering the well-being of anyone and just want to see Dad punished. I do know someone who managed to get the trust arrangement thing and that seemed to work quite well.

    It’s fun to tromp on the rights of men right now, but it’s just as unfair as the past tromping of women’s rights.

    (And before someone says it, I left a sometimes-on-welfare-sometimes-not home at 17, and put myself through school – it can be done without a great deal of pain. All it takes is the desire to do so. There is *NO* reason to support adult children except by mutual agreement, except in some very extreme circumstances.)

  4. trashee says:

    Hi Ken –

    It’s where he refers to funding court challenges by left-wing fringe groups… he is referring to Charter challenges such as:

    D.B.S. v. S.R.G.
    (Supreme Court of Canada – July 31, 2006)
    Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (“LEAF”) was funded to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) in D.B.S. v. S.R.G.,a case involving retroactive child support and the entitlement of recipient spouses, predominantly mothers, to increased child support following an increase in the income of payor spouses, who are predominantly fathers.

    In June 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a trio of appeals brought by Muslim Arab non-citizens who challenged the constitutionality of the security certificate process. The case raised important equality issues focusing on the disparate impact of the process on Canada’s Arab and Muslim communities, as well as other people of colour.
    In February 2007, the Court made a unanimous decision that the Charter section 7 right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person was engaged. The Court held that IRPA’s impairment of s. 7 does not meet the principles of fundamental justice and rejected the notion that national security concerns could be used to justify procedures
    that do not conform to fundamental justice.

    The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (“CCD”), a not-for-profit disability advocacy organization, filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (“CTA”), which operates under the authority of, and is empowered by, the Canada Transportation Act (the “Act”). The Act prohibits placing “undue obstacles” on the mobility of persons with disabilities in Canada’s transportation network. CCD argued that the Renaissance cars were no more accessible than Via’s existing fleet of 30 year-old cars and that Via’s failure to purchase cars which conformed to modern accessibility standards amounted to undue
    obstacles, within the meaning of the Act.

    I could go on, but you can check out the site yourself at

    The feds fund these challenges since it is almost impossible for most of these groups to fund them themselves. And a fundamental aspect of the Canadian justice system is that no one shall be denied a fair hearing because of a lack of means.

    The Harperites have wanted to end this program for quite some time – as the Reformers did before them.

  5. Ken says:

    I’m asking this in all seriousness: Can you tell me at what exact point in the video Harper calls women a left-wing fringe group? I do remember him saying “left-wing fringe groups” but I don’t remember him saying that women were one of them.

  6. XUP says:

    Pffftttt…”women”. That’s going nowhere fast.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: