World

Canadian MP Photoshopped for Revealing Too Much Cleavage?

Canadian MP Photoshopped for Revealing Too Much CleavageWhile examining the two images above, one might notice a rather stark difference in the subject — 29-year old member of the Canadian Parliament Rathika Sitsabaiesan’s – ”physique.”

A Google search conducted by a reader of blog “Contrarian” allegedly featured a photo of Sitsabaiesan on the official Parliamentary website revealing what could be considered too much cleavage (featured left). However, a subsequent search of the recently elected PM on Parliament’s site revealed an apparently photoshopped version of the original thumbnail (featured right).

Contrarian reports:

The Google thumbnail that connected to the official Parliamentary page now seems to have disappeared from Google’s image search results, leading us to conclude that Mr. Austin’s search occurred in the brief interval before Google’s image search caught up with a change in the underlying page. A similar thumbnail, however, still cleaves to MP Sitsabaiesan’s page at the open-source OpenParliament.ca website, which credits the image as “House of Commons photo.”

This persuades us that the photo on the official website of Parliament must have originally appeared in the (please forgive us) cloven version, only to fall under the Parliamentary PhotoShopster’s digital airbrush. This makes us wonder whether the bowdlerization took place on request from the NDP caucus, from MP Sitsabaiesan’s office, or on the Parliamentary website’s own authority.

Well, Blaze readers? Do you think Miss Sitsabaiesan’s photo was altered to avoid any potential backlash among critics — and was the original photo too revealing for an elected official in the first place?

Comments (169)

1 2 3 ... 5
  • love the kids
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:48am

    Free speach, let them talk.

    Report Post »  
    • Steve
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 8:21am

      God forbid. Next thing will be a burka.

      Report Post »  
    • WhiteHorse
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 10:08am

      There is no free speech in canada. Just ask Anne Coulter. They wouldn’t even allow her in the country they were so afraid of what she would say.

      Report Post » WhiteHorse  
    • Bluefish49
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 10:53am

      Ahh come on…this ain’t right.

      Report Post »  
    • drphil69
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 11:38am

      Would Muslims get upset if some fashion designer decided to use the burka?

      I think there might be a market for some more fashionable burka’s… maybe a burka for your favorite football team? How funny would a “Washington Redskins” burka be?? Or a “Dallas Cowboys” burka!!

      Report Post »  
    • JESUS-IS-LORD
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 12:18pm

      This is so stupid. Humans are unbelievable.

      Report Post » JESUS-IS-LORD  
    • VegasGuy
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 1:49pm

      From the article: “A similar thumbnail, however, still cleaves . . . ”

      Hilarious! Tiffany Gabbay gets the boobie prize! :)

      Report Post » VegasGuy  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 3:40pm

      In politics, what better way to get noticed.

      Report Post »  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 4:10pm

      IMO there is no such thing as too much cleavage.

      Report Post »  
    • Viet Vet
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 4:11pm

      @WhiteHorse

      Just ask Mark Stein.

      Report Post »  
    • pjfrench
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 4:20pm

      Whatever….looks like the difference between “lift” and “lift and separate” to me. Who cares? There are bigger (NO, that wasn’t what I meant) problems. On to the next story please.

      Report Post »  
    • bmwrider
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 5:07pm

      This MP, a progressive, is about one-thousand times more attractive than that cow Sarah Palin.

      Report Post » bmwrider  
    • Rex Corvinus
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:48pm

      @BMWRider — YAAFM. Thanks for outing yourself.

      Report Post »  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:06pm

      They don’t have free speech in Canada

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:07pm

      Only a douchebag would drive a BMW.

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:09pm

      “bmwrider
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 5:07pm

      This MP, a progressive, is about one-thousand times more attractive than that cow Sarah Palin.”

      Ummmmmm…..she is also like 20 years her junior!

      And when did Canadians start electing Muslims or Hindis to their parliament?

      I don’t see any “Europeans” in Indian or Saudi parliamenta….

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 11:39am

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16cWiWj–8E

      ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID

      Report Post »  
    • Wilkins
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 10:57pm

      @TheSoundOf Truth
      Rathika Sitsabaiesan is a Canadian citizen born in Sri Lanka (why do the Chinese have so many one syllable names? The Tamils used up all the other syllables!) and raised in Mississauga, ON.

      As such she’s as Canadian as any. A member of the NDP “Not Destined for Power” party, which was swept to official opposition status by the implosion of the often ruling Liberal Party, which foolishly put forward a Canadian born son of Russian immigrants as their leader. Of course, Count Ignatief gave up being Canadian to be first British (saying the only good thing about Canada was Algonquin Park), then an American citizen. Politically a progressive, a professor at Harvard, he made PSAs addressing illegal immigrants saying, about the USA, “… this is as much your country as it is mine.” Hey don’t blame us, you guys gave him the passport ;-)

      The people of Scarborough Rouge River apparently preferred this socialist naturalized Canadian of Sri Lankan descent to the party of the Canadian born, citizen of the world progressive. Never mind, the Conservative Party of Canada won a majority, so Ms Sitsabaiesan’s party can squalk from the sidelines for a few years, and the Liberals don’t get to talk much these days.

      Report Post »  
  • palmettopalflorida
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:43am

    Not your stereotypical bitter looking Leftist, man hating lesbian hag that seems to be drawn to political movements, is she? Not that there’s anything wrong with being a politically motivated, bitter, Leftist, man hating lesbian hag. As for too revealing? Don’t care about her sexual orientation, though that’s what I focused on before. I want more cleavage. More cleavage!

    Report Post »  
  • trench99
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:32am

    Ladies, you’ve got em to flaunt em! I agree with 22, maybe if they got rid of burkas they wouldn’t be so quick to live in caves, stone women, or cry for jihad. They would be busy enjoying the scenery!!

    Report Post »  
  • SamIamTwo
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:19am

    Typical of the times we live in…look at the cloths that the retailers pimp to they young women of our society. And when I say young, I mean young… The word modesty has been dropped from our society…raise your children well or they too shall become pray to the perverts jin power nudging society toward more sexuality. From the posts you can see that it has become acceptable and the men, will they will be men for they are made of flesh and blood. Human nature takes over when women unknowingly pimp themselves. Oh but it is the fashion of the day, pfft, yeah, right…you too (men and women) are being enslaved by the left perverts to further their agenda.

    Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • 22
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:44am

      If I remember correctly, Eve was naked at first until some prude, old, Big Sis looking women told her to cover up. God created us, not our clothes. Be proud of who you are.

      Report Post » 22  
    • 22
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:57am

      God also gave man the ability to learn, create, and better ourselves. So if you don’t like what God gave you, change it. That‘s why we’re all different, variety is the spice of life. If everyone was gorgeous, then someone like you, fat and ugly, would be considered attractive and hot. As it is, God made most of us unattractive, so when we see someone that isn’t, we think they’re hot. Me likes boobies!!

      Report Post » 22  
    • CaptMickeyd
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 8:46am

      22, you DO ermember incorrectly. Eve was nude until she had the knowledge of good and evil and realized she was nude. Then God made them clothes. So, you were wrong twice in one post. Good show!

      Report Post » CaptMickeyd  
    • Fly Old Glory 24/7 365
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 11:21am

      yep 22, you obviously don’t remember correctly…

      Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 11:51am

      In the beginning they were naked and unashamed. But after they sinned their eyes were opened to their nakedness, which is a spiritual metaphor. The problem isn’t our bodies. It is our sin. Modesty was created as the propoer spiritual responce to our unholiness. We are naked before God and not clothed in righteousness.

      Those who reject modesty in dress almost always reject modesty in the important spiritual matters and proclaim themselves, and mankind in general, as essentially good, whereas the truth is that we are all sinners from birth.

      I have no problem with this photo being airbrushed unless it was done only out of fear of Muslim reaction. Modesty is something that should b done out of respect, not fear. And it is respect for God and the decency of society, not one segment of society..

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 12:40pm

      @Floridacracker,

      Do you not read the Bible? It speaks nothing about being clothed in light or anything else. It DOES however, specifically say, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” Genesis 2:25.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Fly Old Glory 24/7 365
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 1:17pm

      I’ve never heard the glory of light thing….

      Report Post »  
    • 22
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:53pm

      Chill out you bible thumping idiots! It’s a pair of t!ts. Just like the ones you used to suckle. Although they are probably smoother, more firm, and attached to someone much more attractive than what gave birth to you. You are human, don’t presume to tell me what God said, what God meant, or what you think God wrote. The bible is a man’s interpretation of what he thought God meant. God didn’t sit there and pen the thing. It’s not the literal truth!

      Report Post » 22  
    • Fly Old Glory 24/7 365
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:57pm

      @22 bwahahahahahaha….so you just making things up is okay? I don’t consider myself a bible thumper, but I usually don’t try to make things up about it as you have…

      Report Post »  
    • 22
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:57pm

      @CAPTMICKEYD; Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. Glad to see you can spell. Guess you didn’t live up to the full potential God gave you. You also left out the part about man being a test tube baby for ancient aliens who love nice big t!ts on their slave labor. You have a blessed day. Tweek

      Report Post » 22  
    • 22
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 3:04pm

      What have I made up. Were YOU there. Were ANY of you there. Please don’t. For every argument you have that I am wrong I can come back and say that you are too. You believe what you want and I’ll do the same.

      Report Post » 22  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:14pm

      hey 22, what kind of a stupid loser are you? do you think your new BS line will work? YOU asserted an idea as the TRUTH. You used no qualifiers like MAYBE or MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

      “Adam and Eve were not naked before the fall. They had a glory of light surrounding them”

      That’s was you, ASSERTING your belief. We at least are refering to something established as an authority by long custom. You can disagree with it all you want, but if you are going to tell us we are wrong and you are right then we expect some evidence to back that up.

      We may thump the Bible to demonstrate where we get our information. What are you thumping, except your head?

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:18pm

      And just to remind you, oh epic loser that you are, it was YOU who brought up Adam and Eve, not any of us, and then when it was shown that you didn’t even know the story to which you were refering you tried to bob and weeve and then fell back on calling us Bible thumpers and saying all opinions are equal.

      What a maroon.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:22pm

      Oops, got egg on my face. I copied from florida *******’s howler, rather than 22′s mere biblical ignorance; This is what 22 asserted:
      “Eve was naked at first until some prude, old, Big Sis looking women told her to cover up.”
      Still an assertion of knowing the truth while being totally wrong.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • 22
      Posted on September 28, 2011 at 2:13am

      Wow! You really put me in my place didn’t you. It was an efing joke, thumper. Get you’re head out of the book and get a sense of humor. I could care less if she was clothed in the light of God, naked, or wearing a bikini! 99% of the people that read it, got it. It was meant to say that prudes, thumpers, and worms like you, won’t allow a little bit of cleavage to be shown. It was also because of all knowing, better than thou asses like you, that made people like me leave the church. Oh, and I find your use of the Lords image on a public forum (talking about t!ts) offensive. YOU should know better.

      Report Post » 22  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:14am

    Newsworthy? Really?

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Constructionist
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:04am

    Breasts are indecent; there is no call for women in politics to have them. A sense of humor and functional moral compass is also unacceptable. All women in politics should be hateful liberal trolls.

    Report Post » Constructionist  
  • NewAmericanist
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:02am

    Candidate on the left is far more electable.

    Report Post » NewAmericanist  
  • Adalwulf
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 7:00am

    Probably had to be changed as too many hags complained.

    Report Post » Adalwulf  
  • jim
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:59am

    If you got it, flaunt it, babyyyyy.

    Report Post » jim  
  • shirelover
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:52am

    after reading all the comments, my comment is:

    what a beautiful young woman! I don’t know a thing about her politics but we can “hope” she truly has Canada’s best interests at heart.

    Report Post » shirelover  
  • justsohappy
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:48am

    ^^plastic.^^ That’s what I get for trying to type this early in the morning.

    Report Post »  
  • justsohappy
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:47am

    That we are even having this conversation is a bit sexist. Why does it even matter? She looks just fine in the photo on the left and looks like an androgynous pastic version of herself on the right.

    Report Post »  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 1:44pm

      You have to see cleavage to tell if she’s a woman? That’s messed up. Maybe you don’t remember when showing cleavage was immodest. I do. So I have no problem with fixing a picture so that it seems more appropriately modest. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of our society felt that way?

      But maybe you like the Playboy culture.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
    • TheSoundOf Truth
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:13pm

      “Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 1:44pm

      You have to see cleavage to tell if she’s a woman?”

      Nowadays, even with cleavage you can’t tell…could be a dude-looks-like-a-lady situation

      Report Post » TheSoundOf Truth  
    • Islesfordian
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 9:29pm

      You can almost always tell. there are the rare exceptions. I know one. I wondered for some time whether she was a man or woman. But this girl? I have never seen a transexual that could look that feminine.

      Report Post » Islesfordian  
  • dpselfe
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:25am

    LOL- Boobies

    Report Post » dpselfe  
  • keaton
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 6:11am

    Boobbieees heh heh heh

    Report Post »  
  • NickDeringer
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 5:52am

    Good to see Scott Baker is pushing the stories we need to know about.

    cough…cough…

    Report Post » NickDeringer  
    • Fly Old Glory 24/7 365
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 11:25am

      not every freaking story has to be about the end of the world. You ppl that have to point out the stupidity of some of the stories on here need to chill. Just don’t read it. Move on. I for one think the story is an interesting look at the times we live in. But you go on being like you are, must be fun

      Report Post »  
  • 22
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 5:22am

    Is this possibly a little bit of that Middle Eastern ass backwardness poking its head out. Do they truly feel that less cleavage is more respectful. Why not just photoshop a burka on her and be done? I’ve always thought that we could win over the Middle East by dropping millions of copies of Penthouse. Don’t cover up ladies, show them off. Allah gave you a great body, use it! Maybe these little sand gnats wouldn’t want to blow themselves up so quickly if they actually had a reason to live. I’d kill myself to if all I saw was sand, burkas, my sexy little goat, and camel ass.

    Report Post » 22  
  • NuffSaid
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 4:58am

    The very word, “Photochopping” scares me.

    Report Post »  
  • reform
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 3:18am

    Ah who is she and why do I give a flick!

    Report Post »  
  • axel@25
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 3:07am

    After she’s spent a few years on the hill, nobody will care … she’ll start to look like Nancy Pelosi (the NDP make our Democrats look like Tea Partiers)

    Report Post »  
  • nocomment
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:43am

    ONE WORD FOR THE CANADIAN MP…

    ‘Boing’

    Report Post »  
    • nocomment
      Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:47am

      I’m very sorry… I meant…

      ‘BOOOOIIIIINNNNGGGG!’

      Report Post »  
  • Kaoscontrol
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:35am

    How cute! The image on the left looks like my infant son’s little butt cheeks.

    Report Post » Kaoscontrol  
  • fabercastell
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:35am

    I didn’t know that Canada had prudes up there.

    Report Post »  
  • fabercastell
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:34am

    I didn’t know Canada had some prudes there. They always appeared in the media to be less conservative than Americans. I guess they do have some up there as well.

    Report Post »  
  • scout n ambush
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 2:02am

    At least she was more open and transparent than some politicians claim they will be .But i dont think this is what they meant.

    Report Post » scout n ambush  
  • Cosmos102
    Posted on September 27, 2011 at 1:53am

    Umm…if you care, then “yes” to both questions. But if you don’t, then “no”.

    Report Post » Cosmos102  
1 2 3 ... 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love