Submitted: 11:18, PDT, 31 Mar.'10 CBC News
Clinton backs contraception for maternal health, March 31, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/30/clinton-contraception.html
Wow, someone who is making a statement about family planning based on experience and rationality. As opposed to Stephen Harper and the Con's ideological 'we are going to impose our narrow, extreme right wing principles not just on Canada but the world'. But then, Hillary Clinton is not a extreme right wing Republican hanging desperately onto the regressive policies of GW Bush.
There are two things that should be noted about Clinton;'s statements:
"I have worked in this area for many years".
This is indicative of pragmatically based policies, designed to address a very series problem as opposed to inflict an ideology on people who desperately need help and so are vulnerable to such ideological assaults. The Harper approach is reminiscent of Soviet Union era approach to International affairs. It also is a very well developed strategy (Naomi Klein, "The Shock Doctrine") of right wing conservative extremism being able to capitalize on disasters.
"I do not think government should be involved in these decisions . . . it is perfectly legitimate for people to hold their own personal views based on conscience, religion or any other basis."
Right on (morally, that is) Hillary.
This, of course, is the position of many of the G8 governments and corresponds to my Blog "Mr. Harper - Canada is No Iran", 21 February, 2010:
"Canada is a secular society. When I ran as the Liberal candidate in '04 I made it clear that for me abortion is a matter of personal conscience. This is, of course, based, in part, on my strong belief in the necessity of separation of State and Church, basing Government polices on the realities and not ideology, and probably most important, acknowledging that there may be many, many people in Canada, and around the world, that simply don't subscribe to one particular system of religious beliefs - i.e. Canada is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about)."
We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. It is my understanding that that is the point that Ignatieff was making; that is the point that the G8 countries are making; and, this is the point that the UK Department for International Development: "Unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalization of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications".
(see: Old Comments: from Dec.'07 to Feb.'10 - link at Top-Right margin)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
31 March, 2010
30 March, 2010
- Harper - I want my Canada back
Posted: 3/30/2010 10:34:18 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories swat away foreign-policy flak, The Canadian Press, Mar. 29, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-swat-away-foreign-policy-flak/article1516045/
Jason Kenny statement 'Canada's foreign policy is on the right track' would be more accurately described as 'extreme right wing ideological' track.
When Kenny says "I think we should have a principled approach everywhere" he is referring to the extreme right wing ideologically based conservative principles, the same ones that the conservative movement champion by the Republican in the US.
Fowler is right (morally) when he says that Stephen Harper and the Con's are "selling out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice.” Canada's foreign policies since Harper and the Con's took power have and are taking a extreme right turn.
In fact it applies to domestic policies as well and is not just restricted to trying to get the ethnic vote. As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” ('professor here be just about any rationally and honestly motivated person).
Canada is a middle of the road, tolerant, democratic society focused on helping those that need help and protecting those that need protection. Africa needs help. The Middle East need tolerance. Canada was there and Fowler was at the vanguard. In the Harper Regime those are by-gone days.
It is understandable that Fowler might lament the once greatness that was Canada's. So do a lot of Canadians, myself included.
In the immortalized words of Ken Dryden in his closing remark in the Liberal Leadership race "I want my Canada back"!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories swat away foreign-policy flak, The Canadian Press, Mar. 29, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-swat-away-foreign-policy-flak/article1516045/
Jason Kenny statement 'Canada's foreign policy is on the right track' would be more accurately described as 'extreme right wing ideological' track.
When Kenny says "I think we should have a principled approach everywhere" he is referring to the extreme right wing ideologically based conservative principles, the same ones that the conservative movement champion by the Republican in the US.
Fowler is right (morally) when he says that Stephen Harper and the Con's are "selling out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice.” Canada's foreign policies since Harper and the Con's took power have and are taking a extreme right turn.
In fact it applies to domestic policies as well and is not just restricted to trying to get the ethnic vote. As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” ('professor here be just about any rationally and honestly motivated person).
Canada is a middle of the road, tolerant, democratic society focused on helping those that need help and protecting those that need protection. Africa needs help. The Middle East need tolerance. Canada was there and Fowler was at the vanguard. In the Harper Regime those are by-gone days.
It is understandable that Fowler might lament the once greatness that was Canada's. So do a lot of Canadians, myself included.
In the immortalized words of Ken Dryden in his closing remark in the Liberal Leadership race "I want my Canada back"!
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper's Policies May Unit Canadians - to give the Con's the Boot
posted: 6:40am,PDT, 30 Mar.'10 Metro News Edmonton
Tories seeking Grit knockout blow, Lawrence Martin, 30 March 2010
http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/comment/article/490721--tories-seeking-grit-knockout-blow
There is no secret to Stephen Harper and the Con's raising money. Their supporters contribute. There is also no secret to Harper and the Con's die-hard support of approx 33%. Their supporters are united behind their party.
Eliminating the 'the per-vote subsidy' may hurt and the Liberal Party may have to dig in and bite the bullet, there is little doubt about that.
However, it may just be the wake-up call for the 67% that don't want Harper and the Con's running this great nation of ours and motivate them to action, both through funding and support.
It may very well be the catalyst that causes the middle and left to set aside their polarizing differences and rally under one banner, which would in all likelihood be the Liberals. Last time the co-alition agreement between the Liberals and NDP pre-empted this effect and it may very well have been that the middle and left would have joined together in a common cause despite what their Parties and leaders were doing.
Although the general 'wisdom' on this is that the Governor General would agree to call an election. It is not automatic that she would not go to Parliament to ask it to form another government first, especially if this coalescing has progressed sufficiently. On the other hand, even if she (or he, depending) did call an election. Harper and the Con's may learn first hand that their extremism has gone too far.
The path to saving this great nation of our from the extreme right wing ideologies and nation dismantling of Harper and the Con's may very well be painful and may very well require a fight. It may very well take an 'Archangel'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories seeking Grit knockout blow, Lawrence Martin, 30 March 2010
http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/comment/article/490721--tories-seeking-grit-knockout-blow
There is no secret to Stephen Harper and the Con's raising money. Their supporters contribute. There is also no secret to Harper and the Con's die-hard support of approx 33%. Their supporters are united behind their party.
Eliminating the 'the per-vote subsidy' may hurt and the Liberal Party may have to dig in and bite the bullet, there is little doubt about that.
However, it may just be the wake-up call for the 67% that don't want Harper and the Con's running this great nation of ours and motivate them to action, both through funding and support.
It may very well be the catalyst that causes the middle and left to set aside their polarizing differences and rally under one banner, which would in all likelihood be the Liberals. Last time the co-alition agreement between the Liberals and NDP pre-empted this effect and it may very well have been that the middle and left would have joined together in a common cause despite what their Parties and leaders were doing.
Although the general 'wisdom' on this is that the Governor General would agree to call an election. It is not automatic that she would not go to Parliament to ask it to form another government first, especially if this coalescing has progressed sufficiently. On the other hand, even if she (or he, depending) did call an election. Harper and the Con's may learn first hand that their extremism has gone too far.
The path to saving this great nation of our from the extreme right wing ideologies and nation dismantling of Harper and the Con's may very well be painful and may very well require a fight. It may very well take an 'Archangel'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
29 March, 2010
- Give Harper the Boot - What Better Way to Promote Canada's Future - I Wonder If Anyone Suggested that At the Thinkers Conference
Posted in 2 parts: 3/29/2010 1:12:42 PM & 3/29/2010 1:52:44 PM
The Globe and Mail
What political courage is for, Brian Topp, March 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/what-political-courage-is-for/article1515257/ Tab 2
Slamming the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives then Stephen Harper and his Con's while at the same time suggesting that Tommy Douglas was responsible for everything that is good on our society today - how do you know Brian Topp is an NDP 'poobah' albiet not the grand, yet anyway.
The fact of the matter is that Tommy Douglas did not bring in Health Care. The Liberals did. It may has been supported by Douglas and his party at the time. But that is the point, they supported it they did not bring it in. This is a very important distinction, one that every NDPer today must consider. The NDP is an ideologically based party. As such they cater to approximately 15% of the population. As an Ideological Party they will never run this country. Jack Layton has this grandiose pipe-dream that he will lead the NDP to supplanting the Liberals as the opposition and presumably the government. That's his problem.
However, Layton will never lead the NDP to side with the Liberals in the fashion that Tommy Douglas did. And this is no matter if it allows Harper and the Con's into government and run this country into ruin cutting these "sinews of Canada" and hamstringing our nation. The only alternative is for the Liberals to firmly take hold of the middle-left and offer those who would otherwise vote NDP a real opportunity to rid Canada of Harper and his Con's.
The first two thirds of what Topp has to say is pretty much incoherent, NDP rhetoric. However, at the end he makes a good point. To oust Harper and the Con's from power will only likely be done by a direct toe-to-toe, knock-em-down-drag-em-out confrontation. Not the least of which will be sustaining the viscous attacks emanating from the greatest propaganda machines put together by any Western Democracy in recent history. It will be that hard since Harper and the Con's have about 33% of die-hard supporters, sourced in Alberta with apparently limitless funds and total disregard for the good and future of Canada as a nation. This by itself in the current political polarization almost ensures Harper a minority government and if he can convert a few isolated groups her and there, possible majority.
That will take political courage. However, Topp is absolutely correct, the secret is "you have to want it", so badly you are willing to fight for it and not simply expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter - just ask Jean Chrétien.
[. . . Continued]
'Former prime minister Jean Chrétien was asked Saturday what he remembers as the best idea to emerge from that event.
"I had to make sure we won the election," he quipped.'
(Retirement a top concern at 'thinkers' conference, CBC News, March 27, 2010)
After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level, changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.
It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.
Telltales signs of this process are things like 'they are out-of-touch'; what they propose "does not resonate" with the people; they do not have a plan, strategy, policies; he/she is "not a leader".
If the Liberal Party is experiencing this phenomenon Michael Ignatieff has a huge advantage of not being part of this calcification, but representing new and fresh approach with a open slate, willing to learn.
Ignatieff's background is also ideal for this type of developmental process.
The question is, does he want it so bad he is willing to fight and do what it takes to win, as did Chretien, Trudeau and so may others before him.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The Globe and Mail
What political courage is for, Brian Topp, March 28, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/what-political-courage-is-for/article1515257/ Tab 2
Slamming the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives then Stephen Harper and his Con's while at the same time suggesting that Tommy Douglas was responsible for everything that is good on our society today - how do you know Brian Topp is an NDP 'poobah' albiet not the grand, yet anyway.
The fact of the matter is that Tommy Douglas did not bring in Health Care. The Liberals did. It may has been supported by Douglas and his party at the time. But that is the point, they supported it they did not bring it in. This is a very important distinction, one that every NDPer today must consider. The NDP is an ideologically based party. As such they cater to approximately 15% of the population. As an Ideological Party they will never run this country. Jack Layton has this grandiose pipe-dream that he will lead the NDP to supplanting the Liberals as the opposition and presumably the government. That's his problem.
However, Layton will never lead the NDP to side with the Liberals in the fashion that Tommy Douglas did. And this is no matter if it allows Harper and the Con's into government and run this country into ruin cutting these "sinews of Canada" and hamstringing our nation. The only alternative is for the Liberals to firmly take hold of the middle-left and offer those who would otherwise vote NDP a real opportunity to rid Canada of Harper and his Con's.
The first two thirds of what Topp has to say is pretty much incoherent, NDP rhetoric. However, at the end he makes a good point. To oust Harper and the Con's from power will only likely be done by a direct toe-to-toe, knock-em-down-drag-em-out confrontation. Not the least of which will be sustaining the viscous attacks emanating from the greatest propaganda machines put together by any Western Democracy in recent history. It will be that hard since Harper and the Con's have about 33% of die-hard supporters, sourced in Alberta with apparently limitless funds and total disregard for the good and future of Canada as a nation. This by itself in the current political polarization almost ensures Harper a minority government and if he can convert a few isolated groups her and there, possible majority.
That will take political courage. However, Topp is absolutely correct, the secret is "you have to want it", so badly you are willing to fight for it and not simply expect it to be handed to you on a silver platter - just ask Jean Chrétien.
[. . . Continued]
'Former prime minister Jean Chrétien was asked Saturday what he remembers as the best idea to emerge from that event.
"I had to make sure we won the election," he quipped.'
(Retirement a top concern at 'thinkers' conference, CBC News, March 27, 2010)
After being in power for 10 years or so, it may be a Party becomes top heavy with people who have the power and influence and not only feel they still know how to do things but they want to be the one that single-handedly brings the Party back to power. Not only do they not understand on an intuitive, anything other than lip service, level, changes that the nation has undergone politically, economically, socially and outlook, they are closed to anything new, since, well quite frankly they know it all.
It apparently takes around 8 years for the Party to break up this hardening and rid themselves of this and allow the up and comers who not only intuitively understand the new landscape, they are 'hungry' and willing to work and to learn, and adapt to, what it takes to not only approach the people in the fashion they understand but also to, themselves understand, on a fundamental level, and identify with their concerns and the issues of the day that the people feel are important.
Telltales signs of this process are things like 'they are out-of-touch'; what they propose "does not resonate" with the people; they do not have a plan, strategy, policies; he/she is "not a leader".
If the Liberal Party is experiencing this phenomenon Michael Ignatieff has a huge advantage of not being part of this calcification, but representing new and fresh approach with a open slate, willing to learn.
Ignatieff's background is also ideal for this type of developmental process.
The question is, does he want it so bad he is willing to fight and do what it takes to win, as did Chretien, Trudeau and so may others before him.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 March, 2010
- Harper, Too-Clever-By-Half
Submitted: 7:55am, PST, 26 Mar.'10 CBC News
Canadian soldier interviewed Afghan forces detainee, James Cudmore, CBC News,
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/26/afghan-detainee-documents.html Tab 22
Stephen Harper releasing these papers these is 'too-few-by-half'.
As it turns out, apparently these documents, as redacted, had been submitted to the Military Complaints Commission and are set to become public in the next month or two.
Anyone wonder about irrationality of Harper saying that all the documents, un-redacted, can not be released to Parliament because of security considerations. Vis.: the only reason Harper, MacKay and other Con's have access to the un-redacted papers, and in toto, is because they are Members of Parliament. Why is it that Harper and the Con's are the only people elected to Parliament that can be trusted to keep Canada's security sensitive information secret and no one else in Parliament can.
Oh, yah, I forgot, because if the truth be know, Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and/or other Con's in the government may be put into a very embarrassing position and required to answer some very tough questions the answers to which may very well put their actions into question, their hold on power into jeopardy or worse, cause investigations by the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
With these documents coming to light, and there will be more (as I mentioned before it is something like a big hunk of [censored] thrown against a wall, first a little flick hits, then another then a little bigger and in more rapid success until 'whap'), anyone wonder why a full and open Judicial Inquiry is not being called.
Oh yah, I forgot, . . . (please see above)
Stephen Harper and the Con's, it time to withdraw to previously determined position. Retreat back to whence you came. Haven't you done enough damage to Canada and our reputation in the world. Why does Canada have to suffer this simply for putting you into power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Canadian soldier interviewed Afghan forces detainee, James Cudmore, CBC News,
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/26/afghan-detainee-documents.html Tab 22
Stephen Harper releasing these papers these is 'too-few-by-half'.
As it turns out, apparently these documents, as redacted, had been submitted to the Military Complaints Commission and are set to become public in the next month or two.
Anyone wonder about irrationality of Harper saying that all the documents, un-redacted, can not be released to Parliament because of security considerations. Vis.: the only reason Harper, MacKay and other Con's have access to the un-redacted papers, and in toto, is because they are Members of Parliament. Why is it that Harper and the Con's are the only people elected to Parliament that can be trusted to keep Canada's security sensitive information secret and no one else in Parliament can.
Oh, yah, I forgot, because if the truth be know, Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and/or other Con's in the government may be put into a very embarrassing position and required to answer some very tough questions the answers to which may very well put their actions into question, their hold on power into jeopardy or worse, cause investigations by the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
With these documents coming to light, and there will be more (as I mentioned before it is something like a big hunk of [censored] thrown against a wall, first a little flick hits, then another then a little bigger and in more rapid success until 'whap'), anyone wonder why a full and open Judicial Inquiry is not being called.
Oh yah, I forgot, . . . (please see above)
Stephen Harper and the Con's, it time to withdraw to previously determined position. Retreat back to whence you came. Haven't you done enough damage to Canada and our reputation in the world. Why does Canada have to suffer this simply for putting you into power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
25 March, 2010
- Harper: One-out-of-Three, What More Do You Want
Posted 8:08am,PST, 25 Mar.'10 CBC News
Tories remain favourites in new poll, CBC News 25 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/24/ekos-poll-mar25.html#socialcomments Tab 81
This Poll is not surprising since it just illustrates Canada is being lead by a small segment if the population, approximately 33% die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper and the Con's. They are based in Alberta and represent the extreme right wing of our society. These core supporters also fund the Con party not just in ridings local to Calgary or Edmonton but all over Canada.
The surprising thing is that the other 67% let them.
The longer Harper and the Con' are in power the more they will be able to drag use, evidently un-screaming, more and more to the right with their right wing, hyper-partizan appointments and implementation of policies. The recent one on International assistance to women and family planning is a prime example of how they making an extreme right turn from Canada's policies of 25 years.
Ignatieff's Thinkers Conference may very well develop important new directions for Canada, and the possibilities are exciting. But, that is for the long term (relatively speaking). By the time a clear condensed policy is finalized it will be two years. In two years the political landscape of Canada will have be pulled so far to the right that these policies will be much harder to bring to the people than now.
Ignatieff and the Liberals should be looking to bring in policies now that will allow the centre and left to unite under one banner to defeat the Con's.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
Tories remain favourites in new poll, CBC News 25 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/24/ekos-poll-mar25.html#socialcomments Tab 81
This Poll is not surprising since it just illustrates Canada is being lead by a small segment if the population, approximately 33% die-hard supporters of Stephen Harper and the Con's. They are based in Alberta and represent the extreme right wing of our society. These core supporters also fund the Con party not just in ridings local to Calgary or Edmonton but all over Canada.
The surprising thing is that the other 67% let them.
The longer Harper and the Con' are in power the more they will be able to drag use, evidently un-screaming, more and more to the right with their right wing, hyper-partizan appointments and implementation of policies. The recent one on International assistance to women and family planning is a prime example of how they making an extreme right turn from Canada's policies of 25 years.
Ignatieff's Thinkers Conference may very well develop important new directions for Canada, and the possibilities are exciting. But, that is for the long term (relatively speaking). By the time a clear condensed policy is finalized it will be two years. In two years the political landscape of Canada will have be pulled so far to the right that these policies will be much harder to bring to the people than now.
Ignatieff and the Liberals should be looking to bring in policies now that will allow the centre and left to unite under one banner to defeat the Con's.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
24 March, 2010
- Harper Carries The Torch of Extreme-Conservatism Handed-Off From George W. Bush
Posted: 9:37am, PST, 24 Mar.'10 CBC News
Liberals defeat own family planning motion, CBC News, 24 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/23/politics-liberals-contraception-g8-motion.html Tab 234
Bob Rae is absolutely right (morally) when he states that Canadian policies must be based on "scientific evidence" and not "failed right-wing ideologies".
The purpose of our government is to help those that need help and to protect those that need protecting. It is not the government's purpose to promote an ideology, 'spread the faith' that was so prevent centuries ago before the age of enlightenment.
Stephen Harper and the Con's ignore sound rationality, they use no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base. Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” ('professor here be just about any rationally and honestly motivated person). Harper and the Con's are dragging Canada back into a dark age of irrationality and fear. In a complex modern, diverse, tolerant Western democracy with a first world economy like Canada we cannot afford to revert to a medieval mindset. This is something I feel strongly about an have been shouting out for quite a while now. If ever there were a wedge issue and one that separates Harper, The Con's and their die-hard supporters from the vast majority of Canadians it is this one.
Bob Rae is also right (morally) to draw our attention, and in as dramatic a fashion as it takes, to the very strong ideological connection between Harper and the Con's and the extreme, right wing ideology of George W. Bush and the Republicans. Harper's mentors lie in the US. It is as if he and the Con's have picked up the torch of ultra-conservatism from Bush's hand-off. Everyone in Canada ought to be keenly aware of this.
Michael Ignatieff is right (morally) in pointing out that Harper policy is a sharp right turn in Canada's position for the last 25 years. Given that Harper's government is a minority and its position on this issue is supporter by a small minority of people Harper has no moral right to take such a position. Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Harper's position is opposed to other G8 members (which really shouldn't be a surprise).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Liberals defeat own family planning motion, CBC News, 24 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/23/politics-liberals-contraception-g8-motion.html Tab 234
Bob Rae is absolutely right (morally) when he states that Canadian policies must be based on "scientific evidence" and not "failed right-wing ideologies".
The purpose of our government is to help those that need help and to protect those that need protecting. It is not the government's purpose to promote an ideology, 'spread the faith' that was so prevent centuries ago before the age of enlightenment.
Stephen Harper and the Con's ignore sound rationality, they use no more than an emotional appeal to the Con's right wing voter base. Harper's approach is deliberately devoid of logic, rationality and fact based policy development. As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” ('professor here be just about any rationally and honestly motivated person). Harper and the Con's are dragging Canada back into a dark age of irrationality and fear. In a complex modern, diverse, tolerant Western democracy with a first world economy like Canada we cannot afford to revert to a medieval mindset. This is something I feel strongly about an have been shouting out for quite a while now. If ever there were a wedge issue and one that separates Harper, The Con's and their die-hard supporters from the vast majority of Canadians it is this one.
Bob Rae is also right (morally) to draw our attention, and in as dramatic a fashion as it takes, to the very strong ideological connection between Harper and the Con's and the extreme, right wing ideology of George W. Bush and the Republicans. Harper's mentors lie in the US. It is as if he and the Con's have picked up the torch of ultra-conservatism from Bush's hand-off. Everyone in Canada ought to be keenly aware of this.
Michael Ignatieff is right (morally) in pointing out that Harper policy is a sharp right turn in Canada's position for the last 25 years. Given that Harper's government is a minority and its position on this issue is supporter by a small minority of people Harper has no moral right to take such a position. Oh, and by the way, did I mention that Harper's position is opposed to other G8 members (which really shouldn't be a surprise).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 March, 2010
- ' Stimulus Had Little Impact' - Thanks, Harper and all You Con's
Posted: 3/23/2010 2:14:18 PM The Globe and Mail
Stimulus had little impact: Fraser Institute, The Canadian Press, Mar. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/stimulus-had-little-impact-fraser-institute/article1509041/ Tab 15
So, we have this huge deficit that our children and our children's children will be saddled with for years to come and precious little to show for it. Thanks, Stephen Harper. Thanks, all you Con's.
All those billion should have had an effect by now. After all that was the purpose. Ignatieff and the Liberals spent considerable time criticizing Harper and the Con's for taking so long and for the types of spending, this simply shows why. The real problem is how Harper and the Con's have been implementing the stimulus package. Clearly their only concern has been to favouring Con supporters at the expense of everyone else in Canada and taking credit for it as if it were their own funds.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Stimulus had little impact: Fraser Institute, The Canadian Press, Mar. 23, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/stimulus-had-little-impact-fraser-institute/article1509041/ Tab 15
So, we have this huge deficit that our children and our children's children will be saddled with for years to come and precious little to show for it. Thanks, Stephen Harper. Thanks, all you Con's.
All those billion should have had an effect by now. After all that was the purpose. Ignatieff and the Liberals spent considerable time criticizing Harper and the Con's for taking so long and for the types of spending, this simply shows why. The real problem is how Harper and the Con's have been implementing the stimulus package. Clearly their only concern has been to favouring Con supporters at the expense of everyone else in Canada and taking credit for it as if it were their own funds.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 March, 2010
- Time for Canada to Clean Up Our Act - Boot Harper Out
Posted: 3/21/2010 12:14:10 PM The Globe and Mail
How the Conservatives dodged the climate bullet, Gloria Galloway, 21 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-the-conservatives-dodged-the-climate-bullet/article1506329/ Tab 27
It is interesting that Stephen Harper and the Con's would tout that science would somehow find a solution (vis. Carbon sequestration) to global warming and cut funding to research and development. Of course, this 'deus ex machina' devise was a favourite of G.W. Bush and the US conservative movement to slough off criticism for not doing anything about Global Warming.
If there is more a a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
The stimulus package was a prime opportunity to do this but Harper and the Con's have pretty much a write-off on this. They have been too busy trying to use our tax dollars to benefit their supporters and to identify the stimulus spending with the Con party, as opposed to being a seriously needed program funded by all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians.
It is very interesting that Manning would so openly suggest the need for cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. Perhaps the reporter should have asked him what he though of Dion's proposal, now that he is being so open.
Harper and the Con, of course, when cornered always try to deflect criticism. The standard is, as mentioned, that the Liberals failed to do much. This was, of course, before the Canadian people become so aware and conscious of the issue and urgency of Global Warming.
The Liberals of Jean Chrétien were the vanguards and were pushing against the great inertia that existed, in very large part due to all the Con's and those that have a vested interest in oil, especially the Tar Sands in Canada. (It is, when you think about it, outrageous that Harper and his Con supporters were the ones being obstructionist and causing Canada to drag its feet, then Harper turns around and blames the Liberals for not getting things done). This push to awareness was greatly helped by Al Gore. But even more so by the UN Conference. This was after Harper took over. Perhaps Chrétien and Martin might speak out about this.
The Con movement around the world are attacking the Conference, but not matter what it gave this issue the exposure it needed and made people understand its importance. Looking at microscopically and pointing to alleged short comings to suggest that in toto it was wrong is of course fallacious logic to the point of dishonestly.
The fact of the matter is we know that with Harper nothing is going to get done.
The Liberal are prepared to act and with the will of the vast majority of Canadians on side they will act.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
How the Conservatives dodged the climate bullet, Gloria Galloway, 21 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-the-conservatives-dodged-the-climate-bullet/article1506329/ Tab 27
It is interesting that Stephen Harper and the Con's would tout that science would somehow find a solution (vis. Carbon sequestration) to global warming and cut funding to research and development. Of course, this 'deus ex machina' devise was a favourite of G.W. Bush and the US conservative movement to slough off criticism for not doing anything about Global Warming.
If there is more a a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
The stimulus package was a prime opportunity to do this but Harper and the Con's have pretty much a write-off on this. They have been too busy trying to use our tax dollars to benefit their supporters and to identify the stimulus spending with the Con party, as opposed to being a seriously needed program funded by all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians.
It is very interesting that Manning would so openly suggest the need for cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. Perhaps the reporter should have asked him what he though of Dion's proposal, now that he is being so open.
Harper and the Con, of course, when cornered always try to deflect criticism. The standard is, as mentioned, that the Liberals failed to do much. This was, of course, before the Canadian people become so aware and conscious of the issue and urgency of Global Warming.
The Liberals of Jean Chrétien were the vanguards and were pushing against the great inertia that existed, in very large part due to all the Con's and those that have a vested interest in oil, especially the Tar Sands in Canada. (It is, when you think about it, outrageous that Harper and his Con supporters were the ones being obstructionist and causing Canada to drag its feet, then Harper turns around and blames the Liberals for not getting things done). This push to awareness was greatly helped by Al Gore. But even more so by the UN Conference. This was after Harper took over. Perhaps Chrétien and Martin might speak out about this.
The Con movement around the world are attacking the Conference, but not matter what it gave this issue the exposure it needed and made people understand its importance. Looking at microscopically and pointing to alleged short comings to suggest that in toto it was wrong is of course fallacious logic to the point of dishonestly.
The fact of the matter is we know that with Harper nothing is going to get done.
The Liberal are prepared to act and with the will of the vast majority of Canadians on side they will act.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
20 March, 2010
- Harper - Right to the Bitter End
submitted: 8:26am, PST, 20 Mar.'10 The Toronto Star
Travers: PM, rivals gamble in high stakes game, 20 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/782661--travers-pm-rivals-gamble-in-high-stakes-game#comments Tab 2
It seems Stephen Harper and the Con's are becoming un-nerved over the contempt of Parliament for not abiding by the House of Commons Order to release the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up - and rightfully so.
However, I don't think it is a question of a high stakes "game".
Harper and the Con's have no choice but to fight releasing the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents to the bitter end. If the truth be know, it is likely, at the very least, Harper and the Con's regime is over.
Parliament has no choice but to assert its paramountcy to the bitter end. If it doesn't Harper's powers will be unfettered and Parliament marginalized.
Harper will use the 'populism' card as he did in Dec.'08 - he is Prime Minister at the will of the people and not the will of Parliament, comparing our elections to those of Presidential elections in the US. There is no comparison, of course, we vote our representatives and they in turn choose the PM. This makes our representatives paramount, otherwise we loose our representation and become disenfranchised - something like what happens in a dictatorship.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Travers: PM, rivals gamble in high stakes game, 20 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/782661--travers-pm-rivals-gamble-in-high-stakes-game#comments Tab 2
It seems Stephen Harper and the Con's are becoming un-nerved over the contempt of Parliament for not abiding by the House of Commons Order to release the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up - and rightfully so.
However, I don't think it is a question of a high stakes "game".
Harper and the Con's have no choice but to fight releasing the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents to the bitter end. If the truth be know, it is likely, at the very least, Harper and the Con's regime is over.
Parliament has no choice but to assert its paramountcy to the bitter end. If it doesn't Harper's powers will be unfettered and Parliament marginalized.
Harper will use the 'populism' card as he did in Dec.'08 - he is Prime Minister at the will of the people and not the will of Parliament, comparing our elections to those of Presidential elections in the US. There is no comparison, of course, we vote our representatives and they in turn choose the PM. This makes our representatives paramount, otherwise we loose our representation and become disenfranchised - something like what happens in a dictatorship.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 March, 2010
- Harper Un-nerved and Rightfully So
Submitted: 7:25am, PST, 19 Mar.'10 National Post
John Ivison: Stephen Harper's mojo is missing
Posted: March 18, 2010, 11:00 PM by NP Editor
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/18/john-ivison-stephen-harper-s-mojo-is-missing.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
It seems Stephen Harper and the Con's are becoming un-nerved over the contempt of Parliament for not abiding by the House of Commons Order to release the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up - and rightfully so.
After seeing the Budget it has become clear to all Canadians that Harper Proroguing Parliament was a blatant and outrageous abuse of the powers residing in the office of Prime Minister and done only to try to avoid having to take responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up. Now Harper is trying to shirk blame off onto our men and women in uniform.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else. It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question.
Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics.
Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
John Ivison: Stephen Harper's mojo is missing
Posted: March 18, 2010, 11:00 PM by NP Editor
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/18/john-ivison-stephen-harper-s-mojo-is-missing.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
It seems Stephen Harper and the Con's are becoming un-nerved over the contempt of Parliament for not abiding by the House of Commons Order to release the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up - and rightfully so.
After seeing the Budget it has become clear to all Canadians that Harper Proroguing Parliament was a blatant and outrageous abuse of the powers residing in the office of Prime Minister and done only to try to avoid having to take responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up. Now Harper is trying to shirk blame off onto our men and women in uniform.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else. It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question.
Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics.
Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 March, 2010
- Stephen Harper and the Con's in Denial - Again
Not posted - Comments were closed The Toronto Star
Travers: Harper uses troops as political shield,
Mar 18 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/781495--travers-harper-uses-troops-as-political-shield#comments
"Harper answered by again using soldiers as a shield. There's no evidence, he said for the umpteenth time, that Canadians did anything wrong."
The question is "Is there evidence that Harper, MacKay and the other Cons did anything wrong". That's why we need the Inquiry.
Travers is pointing out that Harper is trying to shift the focus of the blame from himself and his government to our men and women in uniform in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal. Not accepting responsibility when things go wrong is a very well used strategy of Harper and the Con's. Also, it is bizarre that Harper would make such great efforts to suppress the Afghan Detainee documents and information then say there is no evidence - Harper, Release the Documents then there will be evidence.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else.
It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question, and the source of all the mistrust. It is they for whom the issue is whether they have respected Canada's "international obligations at all times." Not anyone else.
It is my understanding that Stephen Harper and the Con's upped Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to an active combat role and did it almost immediately after getting into power in Jan.'06. (One would think that the Media would, as Stephen Harper himself has put it, shed light on this dark corner.)
Let have a full and open public Judicial Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up and see if there is any evidence if Stephen Harper and the Con government did anything wrong.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Travers: Harper uses troops as political shield,
Mar 18 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/781495--travers-harper-uses-troops-as-political-shield#comments
"Harper answered by again using soldiers as a shield. There's no evidence, he said for the umpteenth time, that Canadians did anything wrong."
The question is "Is there evidence that Harper, MacKay and the other Cons did anything wrong". That's why we need the Inquiry.
Travers is pointing out that Harper is trying to shift the focus of the blame from himself and his government to our men and women in uniform in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal. Not accepting responsibility when things go wrong is a very well used strategy of Harper and the Con's. Also, it is bizarre that Harper would make such great efforts to suppress the Afghan Detainee documents and information then say there is no evidence - Harper, Release the Documents then there will be evidence.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else.
It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question, and the source of all the mistrust. It is they for whom the issue is whether they have respected Canada's "international obligations at all times." Not anyone else.
It is my understanding that Stephen Harper and the Con's upped Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to an active combat role and did it almost immediately after getting into power in Jan.'06. (One would think that the Media would, as Stephen Harper himself has put it, shed light on this dark corner.)
Let have a full and open public Judicial Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfers and ensuing cover-up and see if there is any evidence if Stephen Harper and the Con government did anything wrong.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 March, 2010
- Harper, Try Representing All Canadians for a Change
Posted: 3/17/2010 9:51:48 The Globe and Mail
Birth control won't be in G8 plan to protect mothers, Tories say, Campbell Clark, Mar. 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/birth-control-wont-be-in-g8-plan-to-protect-mothers-tories-say/article1502796/ Tab 24
It seems to me that Stephen Harper, Lawrence Campbell and the Con's position of removing any kind of family planning from Canada's initiatives at the G8 summit is not held by all the other 7 countries.
DFID (UK Department for International Development)
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2009/Policy-on-safe-and-unsafe-abortion/
DFID's policy
DFID supports safe abortion on two grounds. First, it is a right. Women have the right to reproductive health choices. Second, it is necessary. 20% of pregnancies globally end in induced abortion; unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications. This preventable mortality and ill-health due to unsafe abortion is seriously undermining countries’ ability to achieve the fifth Millennium Development Goal (to improve maternal health) and places a high burden on already over-stretched health systems. But DFID does not support abortion as a method of family planning.
Also,
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. But it's a bit reckless to make this the sole focus of the conversation since it has the potential to derail the entire initiative. . . . "
Does maternal health=abortion debate?
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/does-maternal-healthabortion-debate.html
It is coming to light that Harper is basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized.
The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Birth control won't be in G8 plan to protect mothers, Tories say, Campbell Clark, Mar. 17, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/birth-control-wont-be-in-g8-plan-to-protect-mothers-tories-say/article1502796/ Tab 24
It seems to me that Stephen Harper, Lawrence Campbell and the Con's position of removing any kind of family planning from Canada's initiatives at the G8 summit is not held by all the other 7 countries.
DFID (UK Department for International Development)
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2009/Policy-on-safe-and-unsafe-abortion/
DFID's policy
DFID supports safe abortion on two grounds. First, it is a right. Women have the right to reproductive health choices. Second, it is necessary. 20% of pregnancies globally end in induced abortion; unsafe abortion accounts for 13% of all maternal deaths and the hospitalisation of a further five million women every year due to serious health complications. This preventable mortality and ill-health due to unsafe abortion is seriously undermining countries’ ability to achieve the fifth Millennium Development Goal (to improve maternal health) and places a high burden on already over-stretched health systems. But DFID does not support abortion as a method of family planning.
Also,
Dr. Dorothy Shaw, the Canadian G8/G20 spokesperson for the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health. She is a key advisor to the G8 on the issue of maternal health.
"Obviously access to safe abortions is part of assuring maternal health. But it's a bit reckless to make this the sole focus of the conversation since it has the potential to derail the entire initiative. . . . "
Does maternal health=abortion debate?
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02/does-maternal-healthabortion-debate.html
It is coming to light that Harper is basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized.
The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 March, 2010
- Fight Harper with Truth Obtained through Rationality
Submitted: 9:28am, PST, CBC Nwes
Ignatieff defends cross-country tour, CBC News, 16 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/16/ignatieff-meeting-tour-316.html Tab 3
A new national poll
"Michael Ignatieff is seen by substantially more Canadians as smarter than Stephen Harper, but the Prime Minister's macho emotional image plays better with the electorate, says a new national poll exploring the role of emotion in politics.
. . .
But, paradoxically, they want a more chauvinistic – which is an emotional attribute – political culture, with courage heading the list of emotions they prefer most in their politicians, a view of politics dramatically supported by men over the age of 45, who Mr. Graves describes as having a stranglehold on the political agenda."
(G&M,"Exploring the politics of emotion" (I know, but it is important)
Perhaps Michael Ignatieff might want to rethink going on tour rather than fighting toe-to-toe in the House with Harper; 'opposing the budget but not forcing an election'; and, approaching policy formulation as an academic endeavour. These highlight his intellectual abilities but they don't 'take the bull by the horns'.
I think this poll shows that Ignatieff might rather consider using his abilities to rational though to take on Harper and his distortions, cover-ups, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination. The way to fight Harper and the Con's is with truth. The way to the truth is rationality. Ignatieff has the rationality but what people want in their political leader is the 'fight' using the truth, obtained through rationality.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ignatieff defends cross-country tour, CBC News, 16 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/16/ignatieff-meeting-tour-316.html Tab 3
A new national poll
"Michael Ignatieff is seen by substantially more Canadians as smarter than Stephen Harper, but the Prime Minister's macho emotional image plays better with the electorate, says a new national poll exploring the role of emotion in politics.
. . .
But, paradoxically, they want a more chauvinistic – which is an emotional attribute – political culture, with courage heading the list of emotions they prefer most in their politicians, a view of politics dramatically supported by men over the age of 45, who Mr. Graves describes as having a stranglehold on the political agenda."
(G&M,"Exploring the politics of emotion" (I know, but it is important)
Perhaps Michael Ignatieff might want to rethink going on tour rather than fighting toe-to-toe in the House with Harper; 'opposing the budget but not forcing an election'; and, approaching policy formulation as an academic endeavour. These highlight his intellectual abilities but they don't 'take the bull by the horns'.
I think this poll shows that Ignatieff might rather consider using his abilities to rational though to take on Harper and his distortions, cover-ups, duplicity, deception, obscuration and obfuscation, suppression of truth and, slandering, mud slinging and character assassination. The way to fight Harper and the Con's is with truth. The way to the truth is rationality. Ignatieff has the rationality but what people want in their political leader is the 'fight' using the truth, obtained through rationality.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
13 March, 2010
- Harper- Con'd Again
Submitted: 7:33am PST & 8:25am,PST, 13 Mar.'10 The Star
Travers: In Ottawa, even deciding what's secret is secret, Sat Mar 13 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/779406--travers-in-ottawa-even-deciding-what-s-secret-is-secret#article Tab1
I have the greatest respect for justice Frank Iacobucci and anyone who has or is sitting on the bench of the SCC.
However, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Mr. Iacobucci would agree to getting dragged into this sordid affair in this fashion.
Unless it is a full public Judicial Inquiry, I can't see him coming up with any result that won't put him squarely in the middle of a power struggle between Stephen Harper and the Conservative government and Parliament. Also, I don't recall hearing anything from him regarding this, not even a reporter saying they phoned his office but got not reply.
In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)
If such documents exist, would Harper let Mr. Iacobucci see them. If so, would he let him report on them. If so, would Harper release this part of the report to the public. If the answer is no to any of these questions, and I think the likelihood of this is very high given it's Harper, all we would get is Mr. Iacobucci making not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying? the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them? And, how does Parliament, and ultimately the Canadian people, find out.
First, this is a power struggle between Harper and Parliament. By agreeing Mr. Justice Iacobucci is, whether directly or indirectly, putting the Judiciary in the middle, thus blurring the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Executive and Legislative Branches. The only result can be a Judiciary tainted with the allegations of bias, no matter how he concludes.
We have all seen how Harper, MacKay, and all the Con's viciously attack anyone that dares to voice an opinion not totally in agreement with their own. So, if Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Parliament, we can expect no less and this, whether anyone likes it or not, will impact on the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada, as an institution.
In fact, given, Harper and the Con's expressed contempt for our judiciary and in particular Supreme Court and desire to bring it under their thumb, they may take that as an excuse to do just that.
If Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Harper, it will not solve anything since it is non-binding and, in fact put Parliament in a position to insist even harder or concede that Parliament is there at the whim of Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Travers: In Ottawa, even deciding what's secret is secret, Sat Mar 13 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/779406--travers-in-ottawa-even-deciding-what-s-secret-is-secret#article Tab1
I have the greatest respect for justice Frank Iacobucci and anyone who has or is sitting on the bench of the SCC.
However, I can't, for the life of me, understand why Mr. Iacobucci would agree to getting dragged into this sordid affair in this fashion.
Unless it is a full public Judicial Inquiry, I can't see him coming up with any result that won't put him squarely in the middle of a power struggle between Stephen Harper and the Conservative government and Parliament. Also, I don't recall hearing anything from him regarding this, not even a reporter saying they phoned his office but got not reply.
In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)
If such documents exist, would Harper let Mr. Iacobucci see them. If so, would he let him report on them. If so, would Harper release this part of the report to the public. If the answer is no to any of these questions, and I think the likelihood of this is very high given it's Harper, all we would get is Mr. Iacobucci making not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying? the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them? And, how does Parliament, and ultimately the Canadian people, find out.
First, this is a power struggle between Harper and Parliament. By agreeing Mr. Justice Iacobucci is, whether directly or indirectly, putting the Judiciary in the middle, thus blurring the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Executive and Legislative Branches. The only result can be a Judiciary tainted with the allegations of bias, no matter how he concludes.
We have all seen how Harper, MacKay, and all the Con's viciously attack anyone that dares to voice an opinion not totally in agreement with their own. So, if Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Parliament, we can expect no less and this, whether anyone likes it or not, will impact on the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada, as an institution.
In fact, given, Harper and the Con's expressed contempt for our judiciary and in particular Supreme Court and desire to bring it under their thumb, they may take that as an excuse to do just that.
If Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Harper, it will not solve anything since it is non-binding and, in fact put Parliament in a position to insist even harder or concede that Parliament is there at the whim of Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 March, 2010
- Harper is Dithering on Canada
Submitted: 8:10am, PST, 12 Mar.'10 CBC News
Dithering on deficits not an option: Harper, Fred Chartrand, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/11/throne-speech.html Tab 82
A recent Ekos poll found that those who felt the Budget left them better off tended to be Conservative supporters. Those who felt they would be worse off NDP supporters, people in BC and Ontario between the ages of 45 and 64 and University educated. The vast majority didn't think it would affect them. (CBC "Public indifferent on budget impact: poll")
Die-hard Con supporters would support anything that Harper and the Cons did and so that it is not surprising that they would say they felt they would be better off. The surprising thing is that is that it was only 12% of those aware of the budget. Die-hard supporters make up about 33% and this is normally reflected in any Polls and in fact explain the numbers in favour of Harper and the Cons. That only 12% like the Budget to me indicates it was one very bad, do nothing budget. Considering Harper's excuse for Proroguing Parliament was to re-calibrate and prepare the Budget one can only wonder what's going on. (oh, yah, duhhh, Afghan Detaineee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up).
Do nothing that is pro-active and positive, and reduce spending - sounds like when the president and board of directors of a company are unwinding the company.
Do you suppose that Harper is taking steps to dismantle Federalism? Just because Harper has dedicated his public life to tearing Canada asunder doesn't mean this budget goes towards actually carrying this out - well actually it very likely does.
Ignatieff is right (morally that is) the last few years have been a unique and important opportunity for the Canadian government to take action, be pro-active, on many fronts both inside Canada and Internationally. Harper has been and is dithering Federalism away, as planned.
Oh, sorry, Harper did crank up Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to active combat - and gave us the Detainee Transfer Scandal, and cover-up. He did reduce the GST by 2 %'s and gave us a systemic deficit of at least 12 billion. He did give us Canada's Action Plan - oh, my mistake, he gave the Con's and the Con supporters Canada's Action Plan. Harper did take credit for Canada's banking system, despite having nothing to do with it. Harper did suggest that he single handedly saved Haiti. Harper did suggest that he single handedly was responsible for all the medals Canada won at the Olympics. And, Harper will take credit for Canada getting out of recession, despite his do-nothing approach.
These things, of course, occurred without Harper. The Canadian economy will pick up without Harper. The world will get out of recession without Harper. But, Canada as a nation with degenerate with Harper and Canada as a nation will not reach our potential with Harper.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Dithering on deficits not an option: Harper, Fred Chartrand, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/11/throne-speech.html Tab 82
A recent Ekos poll found that those who felt the Budget left them better off tended to be Conservative supporters. Those who felt they would be worse off NDP supporters, people in BC and Ontario between the ages of 45 and 64 and University educated. The vast majority didn't think it would affect them. (CBC "Public indifferent on budget impact: poll")
Die-hard Con supporters would support anything that Harper and the Cons did and so that it is not surprising that they would say they felt they would be better off. The surprising thing is that is that it was only 12% of those aware of the budget. Die-hard supporters make up about 33% and this is normally reflected in any Polls and in fact explain the numbers in favour of Harper and the Cons. That only 12% like the Budget to me indicates it was one very bad, do nothing budget. Considering Harper's excuse for Proroguing Parliament was to re-calibrate and prepare the Budget one can only wonder what's going on. (oh, yah, duhhh, Afghan Detaineee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up).
Do nothing that is pro-active and positive, and reduce spending - sounds like when the president and board of directors of a company are unwinding the company.
Do you suppose that Harper is taking steps to dismantle Federalism? Just because Harper has dedicated his public life to tearing Canada asunder doesn't mean this budget goes towards actually carrying this out - well actually it very likely does.
Ignatieff is right (morally that is) the last few years have been a unique and important opportunity for the Canadian government to take action, be pro-active, on many fronts both inside Canada and Internationally. Harper has been and is dithering Federalism away, as planned.
Oh, sorry, Harper did crank up Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to active combat - and gave us the Detainee Transfer Scandal, and cover-up. He did reduce the GST by 2 %'s and gave us a systemic deficit of at least 12 billion. He did give us Canada's Action Plan - oh, my mistake, he gave the Con's and the Con supporters Canada's Action Plan. Harper did take credit for Canada's banking system, despite having nothing to do with it. Harper did suggest that he single handedly saved Haiti. Harper did suggest that he single handedly was responsible for all the medals Canada won at the Olympics. And, Harper will take credit for Canada getting out of recession, despite his do-nothing approach.
These things, of course, occurred without Harper. The Canadian economy will pick up without Harper. The world will get out of recession without Harper. But, Canada as a nation with degenerate with Harper and Canada as a nation will not reach our potential with Harper.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper Policies on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what we have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 March, 2010
- Harper: Parliament Has Confidence in Me . . . Honest
Posted: 3/11/2010 11:17:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Get down to basics, Liberals, Gordon Gibson, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/get-down-to-basics-liberals/article1496668/ Tab 3
Whether a vote is a "confidence" vote should be determined by Parliament. Logically this makes sense. It is Parliament that is deciding whether they have Confidence, certainly it is up to Parliament to say when. With a majority government there is no difference. However, as we have seen, with Harper and the Con's using it to hamstring Parliament it is possible to be abused when there is a minority government. It is not simply that there is a minority government but one lead by someone, Harper, who has spent their public life dedicated to tearing federation asunder and Canada, as a nation, be damned. This is compounded by Harper and the Con's in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway, everyone else is an enemy, no tolerance to compromise, extremist approach.
If the government brings a vote that is defeated. What the result be. Deadlock and everything grind to a halt? Perhaps, but then Parliament may put forward ways to resolve this impasse or recommend an election.
More likely, the government would approach the Opposition Parties for compromise. They may even decide to get consensus before bring the vote. With a minority this is exactly what should be happening, but with Harper and the Con's it is not. Parliament deciding which of their votes is a Confidence vote would certainly be a vast improvement on what we have now.
Similarly for Prorogation and dissolving Parliament. It is Parliament that is being suspended or dissolved. Why is it that it is the Prime Minister, who holds office at the Will of Parliament that decides this. With a majority government or with a minority that has the best interest of Canada as a nation at heart, this issue doesn't surface. But with the likes of Harper and the Con's it does.
Perhaps someone could explain how it is that these power lie in the hands of the Prime Minster anyway.
For my suggestions on Senate refer see my Blog, 22 Feb.'10,
cicblog.com/comments.html
Lloyd MacILquham
***
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
. . .
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
***
Get down to basics, Liberals, Gordon Gibson, 11 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/get-down-to-basics-liberals/article1496668/ Tab 3
Whether a vote is a "confidence" vote should be determined by Parliament. Logically this makes sense. It is Parliament that is deciding whether they have Confidence, certainly it is up to Parliament to say when. With a majority government there is no difference. However, as we have seen, with Harper and the Con's using it to hamstring Parliament it is possible to be abused when there is a minority government. It is not simply that there is a minority government but one lead by someone, Harper, who has spent their public life dedicated to tearing federation asunder and Canada, as a nation, be damned. This is compounded by Harper and the Con's in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway, everyone else is an enemy, no tolerance to compromise, extremist approach.
If the government brings a vote that is defeated. What the result be. Deadlock and everything grind to a halt? Perhaps, but then Parliament may put forward ways to resolve this impasse or recommend an election.
More likely, the government would approach the Opposition Parties for compromise. They may even decide to get consensus before bring the vote. With a minority this is exactly what should be happening, but with Harper and the Con's it is not. Parliament deciding which of their votes is a Confidence vote would certainly be a vast improvement on what we have now.
Similarly for Prorogation and dissolving Parliament. It is Parliament that is being suspended or dissolved. Why is it that it is the Prime Minister, who holds office at the Will of Parliament that decides this. With a majority government or with a minority that has the best interest of Canada as a nation at heart, this issue doesn't surface. But with the likes of Harper and the Con's it does.
Perhaps someone could explain how it is that these power lie in the hands of the Prime Minster anyway.
For my suggestions on Senate refer see my Blog, 22 Feb.'10,
cicblog.com/comments.html
Lloyd MacILquham
***
18 February, 2010, - Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship
. . .
Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.
. . .
This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.
This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.
A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.
***
- Harper and the Con's Hypocrites, You Say
No Posts Allowed: Toronto Star
Former Harper aide says Jaffer should apologize, Andrew Wallace, 10 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777889--former-
harper-aide-says-jaffer-should-apologize?bn=1
"Judges rarely overrule sentence recommendations in plea bargains, and certainly cannot reverse decisions made on charges that are never brought before them, Toews notes"
It seems to me that the charges were in front of the Judge in this case, in which case he would have to agree to having them 'dropped', wouldn't he - Law Professor Stuart seems to think so.
"Queen’s law professor Donald Stuart said when serious criminal charges like these were withdrawn then a detailed explanation should have been given in the courtroom . . ."
That's what I though, perhaps Toews could enlighten us why it is otherwise.
Vic Toews, hyper-partizan whose M.O. consists, apparently, of mud slinging with little concern for what is actually true compared to a law professor, you decide.
"[Toews] goes on to launch a bitter, personal attack on a Winnipeg Free Press reporter." - case in point. And, how about the Cotler 10%-er.
“I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in the federal government,” Stuart said.
Looks that way to me, what does the rest of Canada think.
"Since Jaffer is a public figure, a better explanation of what happened is probably a good idea, Bentley admitted."
You got that right. Given the public status of Jaffer one might think they would do it just to cover their backsides.
"'I don’t think that it’s any of my business,' said Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy."
Wrong, it's everyone's business. Also, Duffy's reporter instincts seem to have waned somewhat.
One would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Former Harper aide says Jaffer should apologize, Andrew Wallace, 10 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/777889--former-
harper-aide-says-jaffer-should-apologize?bn=1
"Judges rarely overrule sentence recommendations in plea bargains, and certainly cannot reverse decisions made on charges that are never brought before them, Toews notes"
It seems to me that the charges were in front of the Judge in this case, in which case he would have to agree to having them 'dropped', wouldn't he - Law Professor Stuart seems to think so.
"Queen’s law professor Donald Stuart said when serious criminal charges like these were withdrawn then a detailed explanation should have been given in the courtroom . . ."
That's what I though, perhaps Toews could enlighten us why it is otherwise.
Vic Toews, hyper-partizan whose M.O. consists, apparently, of mud slinging with little concern for what is actually true compared to a law professor, you decide.
"[Toews] goes on to launch a bitter, personal attack on a Winnipeg Free Press reporter." - case in point. And, how about the Cotler 10%-er.
“I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in the federal government,” Stuart said.
Looks that way to me, what does the rest of Canada think.
"Since Jaffer is a public figure, a better explanation of what happened is probably a good idea, Bentley admitted."
You got that right. Given the public status of Jaffer one might think they would do it just to cover their backsides.
"'I don’t think that it’s any of my business,' said Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy."
Wrong, it's everyone's business. Also, Duffy's reporter instincts seem to have waned somewhat.
One would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 March, 2010
- Harper, How Much More - Call An Inquiry
Submitted: 8:40am, PST, 10 Mar.'10 CBC News
Afghan detainee torture risk raised in 2005: diplomat, March 10, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detainee-afghan-diplomat.html Tab 50
Oh, yah, but did Eillen Olexiuk give any 'credible examples of actual torture' (thanks Harper, Mackay, Hawn)
It is my understanding that Stephen Harper and the Con's upped Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to an active combat role and did it almost immediately after getting into power in Jan.'06. One would think that the Media would, as Stephen Harper himself has put it, shed light on this dark corner.
It is statements like that of Eillen Olexiuk that make a public Judicial Inquiry with full powers, including that of subpoena, that much more important.
Her statements raise a lot of questions. For example, why is she making them now. Why was she not call to testify at the Parliamentary Committee hearings. Surely it was not because she was shy to reveal what she has to say.
The timing of her statement to me should be investigated. It is occurring just as things start to really heat up for Harper and the Con - how convenient for Harper and the Con's that it is actually not Harper but the Liberals that are at fault.
Apparently, Harper is spending all this energy and political risk covering up, not to protect himself and his Con government, but to protect the previous Liberal government - wow, how altruistic, I may have to re-assess my impression of Harper and the Cons.
How many other people are poised to make revelations in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up.
One would think that if Harper thought (and keep in mind that he and his inner circle are the only ones right now that have all the information) that the Liberal Party were in any way at fault that he would be eager to call a full Public Inquiry. After all it was Paul Martin calling one for the Sponsorship Scandal that allowed Harper into power in the first place.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Afghan detainee torture risk raised in 2005: diplomat, March 10, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/09/detainee-afghan-diplomat.html Tab 50
Oh, yah, but did Eillen Olexiuk give any 'credible examples of actual torture' (thanks Harper, Mackay, Hawn)
It is my understanding that Stephen Harper and the Con's upped Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to an active combat role and did it almost immediately after getting into power in Jan.'06. One would think that the Media would, as Stephen Harper himself has put it, shed light on this dark corner.
It is statements like that of Eillen Olexiuk that make a public Judicial Inquiry with full powers, including that of subpoena, that much more important.
Her statements raise a lot of questions. For example, why is she making them now. Why was she not call to testify at the Parliamentary Committee hearings. Surely it was not because she was shy to reveal what she has to say.
The timing of her statement to me should be investigated. It is occurring just as things start to really heat up for Harper and the Con - how convenient for Harper and the Con's that it is actually not Harper but the Liberals that are at fault.
Apparently, Harper is spending all this energy and political risk covering up, not to protect himself and his Con government, but to protect the previous Liberal government - wow, how altruistic, I may have to re-assess my impression of Harper and the Cons.
How many other people are poised to make revelations in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up.
One would think that if Harper thought (and keep in mind that he and his inner circle are the only ones right now that have all the information) that the Liberal Party were in any way at fault that he would be eager to call a full Public Inquiry. After all it was Paul Martin calling one for the Sponsorship Scandal that allowed Harper into power in the first place.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, 'Tough on Con's' Agenda ???
Posted: 3/10/2010 10:37:25 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories bristle when asked to explain Rahim Jaffer's 'slap on the wrist', Jane Taber , 9 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-bristle-when-asked-to-explain-rahim-jaffers-slap-on-the-wrist/article1495270/ Tab 86
Stephen Harper, Rob Nicholson, Vic Toews, Stockwell Day, John Baird and Jim Flaherty, and all the Con's may have a 'Tough on Crime" policy.
But, apparently it is not a "Tough on Con's" policy.
Judges in Canada are appointed for life. The reason is to detach themselves politically and establish and maintain independence. The Canadian judicial system differs from the US in this respect (Senators are appointed for life on the same theory). Our Judiciary has a long tradition of independence.
This should be distinguished from the appointment of people to the bench that have a conservative value system. Everyone has a particular value system which may be conservative, liberal or otherwise. Judges are expected to rely on their experience and value system in making their judgments - hence 'judgment'. However, the value system ought to be in line with the general values of our society. This is most likely to occur when it is a majority government of a moderate nature, that has been in power for a number of years and has the good of all Canadians at heart, as opposed to promoting a particular ideology. The more extreme the ideology of the government, the smaller and more distinct the sector of the population they represent and the more partizan the appointments the less likely these value systems correspond with the general values of the society but that of a small sector. This of course, is the danger of someone like Harper and the Con's wielding executive powers.
I find it very difficult to believe that the judge in this case would accept a plea bargain (a judge does not have to accept a plea bargain) and hand down a sentence in this case based on political considerations - in this case it appear that once the plea bargain is accepted the sentence is automatic, perhaps someone could clarify this.
On the other hand, Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville makes an important and valid point.
Harper, Nicholson and the Con's appear very hypocritical about this. How many times in the past few years have we all heard the Con's accusing our judges of not being tough enough. One would expect that they should be up and arms about the treatment of Jaffer and demand that Jaffer allow the details released. The optics are, of course, because of his political connections to the Con party.
Perhaps someone could go over all "Tough on crime" rhetoric, talking points, policy statements and proposed legislation that Harper and the Con's have espoused up till now and apply it to the Jaffer case. Let me know what the result is.
Also, I believe strongly in the privacy of individual citizens and I am a strong believer in plea-bargains.
But one would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories bristle when asked to explain Rahim Jaffer's 'slap on the wrist', Jane Taber , 9 Mar.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/tories-bristle-when-asked-to-explain-rahim-jaffers-slap-on-the-wrist/article1495270/ Tab 86
Stephen Harper, Rob Nicholson, Vic Toews, Stockwell Day, John Baird and Jim Flaherty, and all the Con's may have a 'Tough on Crime" policy.
But, apparently it is not a "Tough on Con's" policy.
Judges in Canada are appointed for life. The reason is to detach themselves politically and establish and maintain independence. The Canadian judicial system differs from the US in this respect (Senators are appointed for life on the same theory). Our Judiciary has a long tradition of independence.
This should be distinguished from the appointment of people to the bench that have a conservative value system. Everyone has a particular value system which may be conservative, liberal or otherwise. Judges are expected to rely on their experience and value system in making their judgments - hence 'judgment'. However, the value system ought to be in line with the general values of our society. This is most likely to occur when it is a majority government of a moderate nature, that has been in power for a number of years and has the good of all Canadians at heart, as opposed to promoting a particular ideology. The more extreme the ideology of the government, the smaller and more distinct the sector of the population they represent and the more partizan the appointments the less likely these value systems correspond with the general values of the society but that of a small sector. This of course, is the danger of someone like Harper and the Con's wielding executive powers.
I find it very difficult to believe that the judge in this case would accept a plea bargain (a judge does not have to accept a plea bargain) and hand down a sentence in this case based on political considerations - in this case it appear that once the plea bargain is accepted the sentence is automatic, perhaps someone could clarify this.
On the other hand, Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville makes an important and valid point.
Harper, Nicholson and the Con's appear very hypocritical about this. How many times in the past few years have we all heard the Con's accusing our judges of not being tough enough. One would expect that they should be up and arms about the treatment of Jaffer and demand that Jaffer allow the details released. The optics are, of course, because of his political connections to the Con party.
Perhaps someone could go over all "Tough on crime" rhetoric, talking points, policy statements and proposed legislation that Harper and the Con's have espoused up till now and apply it to the Jaffer case. Let me know what the result is.
Also, I believe strongly in the privacy of individual citizens and I am a strong believer in plea-bargains.
But one would think that Jaffer would want the details released in order to try to put it all to rest otherwise this will likely haunt him in any future public life activity. For politicians the taint of guilt in the minds of the people is sufficient.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 March, 2010
- Harper, It Time To Duck
Submitted: 8:56am, PST, 9 Mar.'10 The Star
Travers: Expect PM to spark an election, James Travers, The Toronto Star, 9 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/776970--travers-as-the-heat-builds-expect-pm-to-spark-an-election#comments Tab 9
Stephen Harper only needs a reason to call an election and the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up is more than good enough.
The pattern with scandals and cover-ups appears to be similar to a a lump of [censored] hitting the wall.
At first there is a single 'fleck' that hits the target, by itself not of any real consequence. But it can be viewed as a harbinger. Then another, then a few more but more closely grouped in time, until finally the whole thing 'splats'. One could, similarly, likely put an actual time frame on this phenomenon as well, if one were so disposed.
If Harper is going to 'dodge this one' he will have to force an election and soon.
(If Harper would like some advice on calculating the time frames of such phenomenon, tell him to give me a call, not that I have personal experience, of course).
Also,
(excerpt: cicblog.com/comments.html, 8 Jan.'10, on whether Harper will force an election once Parliament resumes.)
But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.
So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.
Ignatieff ought to be girding his sword, the Liberals 'gathering the Clans'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Travers: Expect PM to spark an election, James Travers, The Toronto Star, 9 Mar.'10
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/776970--travers-as-the-heat-builds-expect-pm-to-spark-an-election#comments Tab 9
Stephen Harper only needs a reason to call an election and the Afghan Detainee Transfer Scandal and ensuing cover-up is more than good enough.
The pattern with scandals and cover-ups appears to be similar to a a lump of [censored] hitting the wall.
At first there is a single 'fleck' that hits the target, by itself not of any real consequence. But it can be viewed as a harbinger. Then another, then a few more but more closely grouped in time, until finally the whole thing 'splats'. One could, similarly, likely put an actual time frame on this phenomenon as well, if one were so disposed.
If Harper is going to 'dodge this one' he will have to force an election and soon.
(If Harper would like some advice on calculating the time frames of such phenomenon, tell him to give me a call, not that I have personal experience, of course).
Also,
(excerpt: cicblog.com/comments.html, 8 Jan.'10, on whether Harper will force an election once Parliament resumes.)
But keep in mind, and this is fundamental to me anyway, Harper and the Con's appear to have a 33 - 35% core of die-hard supporters, Harper and the Con's need only be targeted in their approach to wooing and turning some of the demographic and social-economic 'blocks' and anyone who thinks they do not have such a strategy and are not successful in this will, likely, be in for a surprise. I won't go into the actual blocks and where they stand. But keep in mind that it is quite possible to get a majority with only 38% of the vote.
Also, the 33% core die-hard supporters means that in any election Harper and the Con's are not likely to finish behind any other Party, no matter who starts it. Also, given the seemingly unlimited funds from these supporters and the very limited funds for their 'enemy', an election will not harm the Con Party finances but may very well devastate those of the Liberals, itself a 'winning strategy'.
So Harper has nothing to loose and everything to gain. And, hey, if he can con people into thinking it was the Liberals who brought on the election maybe he will get that majority.
Ignatieff ought to be girding his sword, the Liberals 'gathering the Clans'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper: If It Looks Like a Cover-Up and Smells Like a Cover-Up
Posted: 7:13am, PST, 9 Mar.'10
Ottawa anticipated Afghan torture allegations: memo, March 8, 2010, Gil Shochat, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/detainees-afghan-government.html Tab 104
David Mulroney testimony at the Parliamentary Committee:
"We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment of Canadian-transferred detainees but because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced. We needed to be far more engaged in terms of monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment."
(CBC, 9 Mar.'10)
There appears to be a disconnect in the testimony of David Mulroney. From what I heard on CBC, the Memo, in actuality, had nothing to do with "monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment." but everything to do with how to handle the Media in response to inquiries about the treatment of Afghan Detainees being transferred (and as I recall this was the Harper government's response until they were forced to abandon this position).
Of course, " because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced" begs the question: if there were no " confirmed instances of real and substantial risk" why should it need be further reinforced.
Also, " We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment" does not actually deny any such confirmed instances but its wording suggests that non existed.
This is not the only instance of testimony at the Committee that required clarification.
This illustrates another reason why we need a thorough investigation and public Judicial Inquiry with subpoena powers and experienced lawyers.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Ottawa anticipated Afghan torture allegations: memo, March 8, 2010, Gil Shochat, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/detainees-afghan-government.html Tab 104
David Mulroney testimony at the Parliamentary Committee:
"We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment of Canadian-transferred detainees but because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced. We needed to be far more engaged in terms of monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment."
(CBC, 9 Mar.'10)
There appears to be a disconnect in the testimony of David Mulroney. From what I heard on CBC, the Memo, in actuality, had nothing to do with "monitoring, training, and providing infrastructure and equipment." but everything to do with how to handle the Media in response to inquiries about the treatment of Afghan Detainees being transferred (and as I recall this was the Harper government's response until they were forced to abandon this position).
Of course, " because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced" begs the question: if there were no " confirmed instances of real and substantial risk" why should it need be further reinforced.
Also, " We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment" does not actually deny any such confirmed instances but its wording suggests that non existed.
This is not the only instance of testimony at the Committee that required clarification.
This illustrates another reason why we need a thorough investigation and public Judicial Inquiry with subpoena powers and experienced lawyers.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper: Trust Me . . . No Really
Submitted: 7:46am, PST, 9 Mar.'10 CBC
PM defends spy agency's Afghan role, March 8, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/politics-question-period.html Tab 83
All those Canadians that trust Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con government raise your hand.
Harper: "I hope if the honourable member does not trust the government, if he doesn't trust the Canadian Forces, doesn't trust the foreign service or anybody else, maybe he can trust Justice Iacobucci to review the documents," the prime minister told the Commons.
Unfortunately, and it is a sad day for Canada. It is those that hold the reigns of power that are in question and the source of all the mistrust.
It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else.
It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question, and the source of all the mistrust. It is they for whom the issue is whether they have respected Canada's "international obligations at all times." Not anyone else.
Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.
Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.
Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics.
I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.
However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level and especially the International Criminal Courts in the Hague, to learn the truth.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con's.
Mr. Harper, why do Canadians deserve this? because they let you into power?
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
PM defends spy agency's Afghan role, March 8, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/08/politics-question-period.html Tab 83
All those Canadians that trust Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con government raise your hand.
Harper: "I hope if the honourable member does not trust the government, if he doesn't trust the Canadian Forces, doesn't trust the foreign service or anybody else, maybe he can trust Justice Iacobucci to review the documents," the prime minister told the Commons.
Unfortunately, and it is a sad day for Canada. It is those that hold the reigns of power that are in question and the source of all the mistrust.
It is not the Civil service. It is not our men and women in uniform. It is not the foreign service. And it is not anyone else.
It is Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and all the Con government that are in question, and the source of all the mistrust. It is they for whom the issue is whether they have respected Canada's "international obligations at all times." Not anyone else.
Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.
Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.
Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics.
I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.
However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada, on the International level and especially the International Criminal Courts in the Hague, to learn the truth.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, John Baird, Laurie Hawn and the Con's.
Mr. Harper, why do Canadians deserve this? because they let you into power?
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 March, 2010
- Stephen Harper - Do the Right (morally, that is) Thing - Call a Full Public Inquiry
Submitted: 8:26am PST, 8 Mar.'10 CTV
Full public inquiry needed on detainees: Ignatieff, The Canadian Press, Mar. 8, 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100308/detainees_letter_100308/20100308?hub=TopStoriesV2#commentSection
In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)
Parliament must demand and obtain all the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up in full and pristine order and immediately. This shocking development shows the importance of this.
Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the original documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is something that really only a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers (and other) of a Judicial Inquiry can get to the bottom of.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.
But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.
Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this???
Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them?
We should all demand the truth to this matter and nothing short of a full public Judicial Inquiry can do this.
Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.
Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.
Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics. Canadians do not deserve this simply because they let you into power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Full public inquiry needed on detainees: Ignatieff, The Canadian Press, Mar. 8, 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100308/detainees_letter_100308/20100308?hub=TopStoriesV2#commentSection
In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that:
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)
Parliament must demand and obtain all the documents relating to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up in full and pristine order and immediately. This shocking development shows the importance of this.
Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the original documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is something that really only a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers (and other) of a Judicial Inquiry can get to the bottom of.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.
But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.
Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this???
Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed? Harper is justified in hiding them?
We should all demand the truth to this matter and nothing short of a full public Judicial Inquiry can do this.
Paul Martin stood tall, took the high ground, did the right thing (morally right that is) and ordered a full public Judicial Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal, despite the obviously predictable negative political impact on himself and the Liberal Party. Martin and The Liberal Party paid the price. Canada is paying the price too, it allowed Harper power in the first place.
Stephen Harper and the Con's keep suggesting that it was the previous Liberal government's policies that are at fault and they changed them. However, once again the Liberals are demanding the the right thing (morally right that is) be done, despite the possibility that they will be found at fault as well.
Stephen Harper, show some moral fiber, do the right (morally) thing, stand up, face the nation and call a full public Judicial Inquiry. Abandon your obscurations, obstructions and delaying tactics. Canadians do not deserve this simply because they let you into power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 March, 2010
- Canada - Let No Con (Harper) Tear Asunder
Excerpt Posted: 3/7/2010 12:19:20 PM The Globe and Mail
Retired judge asked to review documents in detainee affair, Gloria Galloway, Mar. 06, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/retired-judge-asked-to-review-documents-in-detainee-affair/article1490854/
Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.
If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.
[University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran]
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.
"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)
In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that "If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
Parliament must demand and obtain these documents in full and pristine order and immediately.
This is a shocking development in the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up shows the importance of this.
Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is only something that could be investigated at a formal Judicial Inquiry and it would certainly explain why Harper and the Con's are doing everything they can to prevent this.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.
But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.
First, this is a power struggle between Harper and Parliament. By agreeing Mr. Justice Iacobucci is, whether directly or indirectly, putting the Judiciary in the middle, thus blurring the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Executive and Legislative Branches. The only result can be a Judiciary tainted with the allegations of bias, no matter how he concludes.
We have all seen how Harper, MacKay, and all the Con's viciously attack anyone that dares to voice an opinion not totally in agreement with their own. So, if Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Parliament, we can expect no less and this, whether anyone likes it or not, will impact on the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada, as an institution.
In fact, given, Harper and the Con's expressed contempt for our judiciary and in particular Supreme Court and desire to bring it under their thumb, they may take that as an excuse to do just that.
If Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Harper, it will not solve anything since it is non-binding and, in fact put Parliament in a position to insist even harder or concede that Parliament is there at the whim of Harper.
___
It seems to me that the Executive has these power by tradition as opposed to law - i.e. there not being any explicit provisions in our Constitution or Legislation regarding these powers. Tradition refers both to the ability to use the power and the manor in which it is used. Harper hides behind Tradition to wield these powers but scoffs at Parliament when he breaks with Tradition in how he wields them. A prime example of this, aside from refusing to disclose the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents was, of course, Prorogation No.1, where Harper used Prorogation to avoid a non-Confidence vote. Also, to illustrate even further he spend over 2 hours discussing this with the Governor General. Given the amount of time spent, and given the importance to Canada and it Democratic Institutions to the very fact of who runs this country, and given its precedent setting nature (based on Tradition) it is vitally important that we Canadian know exactly what was said during this meeting. Harper's response 'it is traditional that the contents of the meeting not be made public' [sic].
The Supremacy of Parliament means precisely that all powers flows from Parliament and is exercised at the Will of Parliament, including those exercised through tradition. This has nothing to do with the Judiciary. Security measures set out in legislation do not apply to Parliament. The Prime Minister is subjacent to Parliament, if Parliament is restricted in access to these documents, how can it possibly be that the Prime Minister or his government is not. Or another way of saying it is if the Prime Minister and his government have unrestricted access how is it possible that Parliament does not.
With a majority government there is no issue.
And with a minority government this is normally not an issue for a number of reasons.
First, and this is very important, normally, and in fact always in our History as far as I am aware, except with Harper and his Con's, the Prime Minister has the best interest of Canada at heart. Whereas Harper has dedicated much his public life to tearing Canada as a nation asunder.
Also, the Prime Minister governs with the Confidence of Parliament, not simply de jure (no non-confidence vote) but also de facto. Since, de facto non-confidence normally very soon becomes de jure non-confidence normally this distinction does not arise.
In the current situation the only reason there is no non-confidence vote is that Canadians do not want an election. This has nothing to do with confidence but everything to do with the current political constellation consisting of extreme polarization in 4 directions, with Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, whether Harper and the Con's are right (morally that is) or wrong, whether it's for the good of Canada as a nation or not, amounting to approx 33%. In other words, the best that could happen is another minority Harper government and the worst, for Canada that is, Harper somehow manages to get a majority (say a backlash by Canadians for the Opposition voting non-confidence and forcing another election).
Simply put Harper does not have the de facto confidence of Parliament.
This bifurcation is especially coming through after this last Throne speech and Budget (to the point even of Ignatieff in essence saying exactly this - vis.: he does not support the Budget or Throne Speech but he will not force non-confidence through a vote of Confidence because the Canadian people sent him the message in no uncertain terms last Fall that they do not want an election), and, of course, with the refusal by Harper to produce the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents.
One can simply not say that, in fact, Harper and the Con's have the confidence of Parliament, whether there is a Non-Confidence Vote or not.
In the context of power struggle. Parliament is in a moment of weakness due to this polarization. Harper knows this and is taking advantage of it to concentrate unimpeded power in his hands. For Parliament not to assert its authority would mean that Parliament would become impotent, marginalized. Harper's power would become supreme and uncontrolled.
This is not a theoretic consideration. These types of polarizations have occurred in many societies and sometimes simply cannot be resolved, except perhaps revolution or civil war, in which case Harper will have achieved his goal of tearing Canada asunder.
___
Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this.
Also, whether evidence has been tampered with is something that really a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers of a Judical Inquiry can get to the bottom of.
Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed, Harper is justified in hiding them?
We should all demand the truth to this matter.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Retired judge asked to review documents in detainee affair, Gloria Galloway, Mar. 06, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/retired-judge-asked-to-review-documents-in-detainee-affair/article1490854/
Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.
If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.
[University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran]
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.
"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
(CBC, News, 5 Mar.'10)
In light of the statements by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran that "If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees . . . There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
Parliament must demand and obtain these documents in full and pristine order and immediately.
This is a shocking development in the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up shows the importance of this.
Given the statements by Prof. Attaran, the possibility that the documents have been tampered with (or, might I phrase it 're-calibrated and redacted') is now something that must be considered. This I think is only something that could be investigated at a formal Judicial Inquiry and it would certainly explain why Harper and the Con's are doing everything they can to prevent this.
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Justice Iacobucci and any current or former judge on the Supreme Court of Canada.
But, why in the world Mr. Justice Iacobucci would want to get mixed up in this sorted affair is beyond my understanding.
First, this is a power struggle between Harper and Parliament. By agreeing Mr. Justice Iacobucci is, whether directly or indirectly, putting the Judiciary in the middle, thus blurring the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Executive and Legislative Branches. The only result can be a Judiciary tainted with the allegations of bias, no matter how he concludes.
We have all seen how Harper, MacKay, and all the Con's viciously attack anyone that dares to voice an opinion not totally in agreement with their own. So, if Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Parliament, we can expect no less and this, whether anyone likes it or not, will impact on the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada, as an institution.
In fact, given, Harper and the Con's expressed contempt for our judiciary and in particular Supreme Court and desire to bring it under their thumb, they may take that as an excuse to do just that.
If Mr. Justice Iacobucci comes down on the side of Harper, it will not solve anything since it is non-binding and, in fact put Parliament in a position to insist even harder or concede that Parliament is there at the whim of Harper.
___
It seems to me that the Executive has these power by tradition as opposed to law - i.e. there not being any explicit provisions in our Constitution or Legislation regarding these powers. Tradition refers both to the ability to use the power and the manor in which it is used. Harper hides behind Tradition to wield these powers but scoffs at Parliament when he breaks with Tradition in how he wields them. A prime example of this, aside from refusing to disclose the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents was, of course, Prorogation No.1, where Harper used Prorogation to avoid a non-Confidence vote. Also, to illustrate even further he spend over 2 hours discussing this with the Governor General. Given the amount of time spent, and given the importance to Canada and it Democratic Institutions to the very fact of who runs this country, and given its precedent setting nature (based on Tradition) it is vitally important that we Canadian know exactly what was said during this meeting. Harper's response 'it is traditional that the contents of the meeting not be made public' [sic].
The Supremacy of Parliament means precisely that all powers flows from Parliament and is exercised at the Will of Parliament, including those exercised through tradition. This has nothing to do with the Judiciary. Security measures set out in legislation do not apply to Parliament. The Prime Minister is subjacent to Parliament, if Parliament is restricted in access to these documents, how can it possibly be that the Prime Minister or his government is not. Or another way of saying it is if the Prime Minister and his government have unrestricted access how is it possible that Parliament does not.
With a majority government there is no issue.
And with a minority government this is normally not an issue for a number of reasons.
First, and this is very important, normally, and in fact always in our History as far as I am aware, except with Harper and his Con's, the Prime Minister has the best interest of Canada at heart. Whereas Harper has dedicated much his public life to tearing Canada as a nation asunder.
Also, the Prime Minister governs with the Confidence of Parliament, not simply de jure (no non-confidence vote) but also de facto. Since, de facto non-confidence normally very soon becomes de jure non-confidence normally this distinction does not arise.
In the current situation the only reason there is no non-confidence vote is that Canadians do not want an election. This has nothing to do with confidence but everything to do with the current political constellation consisting of extreme polarization in 4 directions, with Harper and the Con's die-hard supporters, whether Harper and the Con's are right (morally that is) or wrong, whether it's for the good of Canada as a nation or not, amounting to approx 33%. In other words, the best that could happen is another minority Harper government and the worst, for Canada that is, Harper somehow manages to get a majority (say a backlash by Canadians for the Opposition voting non-confidence and forcing another election).
Simply put Harper does not have the de facto confidence of Parliament.
This bifurcation is especially coming through after this last Throne speech and Budget (to the point even of Ignatieff in essence saying exactly this - vis.: he does not support the Budget or Throne Speech but he will not force non-confidence through a vote of Confidence because the Canadian people sent him the message in no uncertain terms last Fall that they do not want an election), and, of course, with the refusal by Harper to produce the Afghan Detainee Transfer documents.
One can simply not say that, in fact, Harper and the Con's have the confidence of Parliament, whether there is a Non-Confidence Vote or not.
In the context of power struggle. Parliament is in a moment of weakness due to this polarization. Harper knows this and is taking advantage of it to concentrate unimpeded power in his hands. For Parliament not to assert its authority would mean that Parliament would become impotent, marginalized. Harper's power would become supreme and uncontrolled.
This is not a theoretic consideration. These types of polarizations have occurred in many societies and sometimes simply cannot be resolved, except perhaps revolution or civil war, in which case Harper will have achieved his goal of tearing Canada asunder.
___
Just as important, and especially with what University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has just come out with, it is now clear this can only be a delaying tactic by Harper and the Con's. By agreeing to take on the review, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, with all due respect, is dragging himself into this.
Also, whether evidence has been tampered with is something that really a full investigation and review by a judge and experienced counsel with the full subpoena powers of a Judical Inquiry can get to the bottom of.
Suppose Iacobucci makes not mention of the documents referred to by Prof. Attaran. Does that mean Attaran is lying, the documents have been destroyed, Harper is justified in hiding them?
We should all demand the truth to this matter.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
06 March, 2010
- Harper- For Whom The Hague Calls
Submitted: 10:44am PST, 6 Mar.'10, CBC
Canada wanted Afghan prisoners tortured: lawyer, CBC Nwes, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html Tab 219
CBC News:
Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.
If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.
University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran,
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.
"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
***
On 27 Dec.'09 I posted:
It will be an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
Harper can't Prorogue the Hague. Harper - 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - will have to answer.
I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.
However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada ,on the International level, to learn the truth.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con's.
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Canada wanted Afghan prisoners tortured: lawyer, CBC Nwes, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/05/afghan-attaran005.html Tab 219
CBC News:
Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.
If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.
University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran,
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said.
"There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. . . . "
***
On 27 Dec.'09 I posted:
It will be an incredible catastrophe to Canada and our reputation on the International level, if the Afghan Detainee transfer scandal went to the International Criminal Courts in the Hague.
Harper can't Prorogue the Hague. Harper - 'For whom the Gavel Falls' - will have to answer.
I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed.
However, it would be outrageous if Canadians would have to wait for action outside Canada ,on the International level, to learn the truth.
It seems to me that anyone who strongly supports the military would demand an Inquiry in order to place the blame where it ought to lie.
The only people that don't want an Inquiry are those that strongly support Harper, MacKay, O'Connor and the Con's.
How do you get a seat as an onlooker at the Int'l Criminal Court, anyway. Do they sell tickets? Do you to book in advance? Are there Scalpers? Can you apply to be on the prosecution team? Pro Bono? MacKay, you were Foreign Affairs Minister, would you check that out for me. Thanks.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, "Moral Authority, What Moral Authority"
Posted: 3/6/2010 12:16:44 PM - The Globe and Mail
Rights fracas draws international rebuke, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press , Mar. 05, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rights-fracas-draws-international-rebuke/article1491566/ Tab 26
Stephen Harper, Lawrence Cannon and the Con's choice “does not have the moral authority to lead an organization like Rights & Democracy”
Don't be so naïve, International Federation for Human Rights, that just shows what you know about Canadian politics.
Harper, Cannon and all the Con's don't have the moral authority to do most of the things they are doing.
The appointment you are referring to is the least of our worries.
Let me explain.
When you read "Harper and the Con's are right wing party, 'right' does not refer to 'morally right', but to the fact that Harper and the Con's base their polices and things they do on a extremist, intolerant ideology as handed down to them by his American overlords.
Harper has indicated that his strategy is to re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything in dictatorial fashion through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.
Harper and the Con's are dragging us back into a dark age where fear, intolerance and irrationalism reign supreme. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the Dank Ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Canadian Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Rights fracas draws international rebuke, Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press , Mar. 05, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rights-fracas-draws-international-rebuke/article1491566/ Tab 26
Stephen Harper, Lawrence Cannon and the Con's choice “does not have the moral authority to lead an organization like Rights & Democracy”
Don't be so naïve, International Federation for Human Rights, that just shows what you know about Canadian politics.
Harper, Cannon and all the Con's don't have the moral authority to do most of the things they are doing.
The appointment you are referring to is the least of our worries.
Let me explain.
When you read "Harper and the Con's are right wing party, 'right' does not refer to 'morally right', but to the fact that Harper and the Con's base their polices and things they do on a extremist, intolerant ideology as handed down to them by his American overlords.
Harper has indicated that his strategy is to re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything in dictatorial fashion through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight.
Harper and the Con's are dragging us back into a dark age where fear, intolerance and irrationalism reign supreme. Their attitude to Science and Scientific research are in the Dank Ages and Crime reminiscent of the irrationality surrounding witch-hunts and the Inquisition.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention, Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Canadian Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
05 March, 2010
- Stephen Harper - the Pied Piper our children must pay
Posted: 7:45am 5 Mar.'10 CBC
Budget 2010: A closer look at the numbers, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3
Posted: 7:55am, 5 Mar.'10 CBC
What this budget means for you, John McHutchion, CBC News, 4 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3
Yesterday, commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I wrote:
"How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.
I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal."
Today, my comment on the 'budget' is:
How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and all the Conservatives.
The basic approach here is 'steady as she goes' and we will grow ourselves out of deficit by "restraint in the growth of spending" (to the public service, national defence, foreign aid envelope - to clarify things Peter MacKay has come out and re-assured us that spending for national defence will still be increasing but just not as fast - thanks Peter, you're a saint).
The basic Con doctrine, so adeptly expressed by Tom Flanagan, 'it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible' [sic].
"Steady as she goes", sounds great as if it means everyone will do ok. However, in reality, it means the trend of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer will flourish and in fact this budget promotes it.
"Restraint in the growth of spending" assists in the reduction and 'unwinding' of Canada as a Federalism and is likely meant to be a code phrase to all those die-hard Con's especially those in the West.
Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Cons say no tax hikes but they are raising the Federal payroll taxes 13billion (which will likley kill 200,000 jobs and hurt small business).
And lets face it. If Harper and the Cons remain in power over the next 4 - 5 years, especially if they get a majority, you can be certain transfer payments will be reduced and drastically.
Harper may be playing a 'magic lute' but it is all Canadians, our children and our children's children that must 'Pay the Piper'.
Our government's raison d'être is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection. The Harper strategy appears to be to reduces the help and the protection, then federal government will have no justification and so can be 'dissolved'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Budget 2010: A closer look at the numbers, 5 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3
Posted: 7:55am, 5 Mar.'10 CBC
What this budget means for you, John McHutchion, CBC News, 4 Mar.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/03/04/f-budget-interactive.html Tab 3
Yesterday, commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I wrote:
"How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.
I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal."
Today, my comment on the 'budget' is:
How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and all the Conservatives.
The basic approach here is 'steady as she goes' and we will grow ourselves out of deficit by "restraint in the growth of spending" (to the public service, national defence, foreign aid envelope - to clarify things Peter MacKay has come out and re-assured us that spending for national defence will still be increasing but just not as fast - thanks Peter, you're a saint).
The basic Con doctrine, so adeptly expressed by Tom Flanagan, 'it doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible' [sic].
"Steady as she goes", sounds great as if it means everyone will do ok. However, in reality, it means the trend of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer will flourish and in fact this budget promotes it.
"Restraint in the growth of spending" assists in the reduction and 'unwinding' of Canada as a Federalism and is likely meant to be a code phrase to all those die-hard Con's especially those in the West.
Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and the Cons say no tax hikes but they are raising the Federal payroll taxes 13billion (which will likley kill 200,000 jobs and hurt small business).
And lets face it. If Harper and the Cons remain in power over the next 4 - 5 years, especially if they get a majority, you can be certain transfer payments will be reduced and drastically.
Harper may be playing a 'magic lute' but it is all Canadians, our children and our children's children that must 'Pay the Piper'.
Our government's raison d'être is to help those that need help and protect those that need protection. The Harper strategy appears to be to reduces the help and the protection, then federal government will have no justification and so can be 'dissolved'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
04 March, 2010
- Harper's Recalibration - Con'd Again!
Posted 2010/03/04 at 10:58 CBC
Throne speech blasted as disappointing 'old stuff' Government's agenda silent on many key points, opposition leaders say, March 3, 2010, CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/03/throne-speech-reaction-politics.html tab 105
How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.
I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal.
Harper, show some moral fiber and backbone. Stand up and take responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal. Call a Judicial Inquiry. Paul Martin did with the sponsorship scandal. Why should Canadian have to suffer this hurt and indignity simply because Harper wants to clutch onto power.
On the other hand, perhaps the logic is by simply re-introducing all this old stuff, it is hard for the Opposition to vote against it - shrewd!
It appears this Throne Speech reveals a serious problem amongst the Conservative movement.
Harper want to stay in power and is doing anything and everything to grasp and maintain it. The Conservative movement wants a consolidated coherent and comprehensive policy and agenda that reflects and promotes their extreme right wing ideology.
However, Harper knows that if he were to do this his days in office would be numbered (to approx. 35). This leaves Harper with only one course and we are seeing it.
But, there's more and it's insidious. Harper, in fact, is using Parliament as a smoke screen (in military parlance, 'diversion'), while he implements his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight. Another of course is through the budget as we will see.
It is not the lyrics "in all thy sons command" in Canada's national anthem that requires urgent and serious consideration at this time in our nation's development.
It's "we stand on guard for thee"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Throne speech blasted as disappointing 'old stuff' Government's agenda silent on many key points, opposition leaders say, March 3, 2010, CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/03/throne-speech-reaction-politics.html tab 105
How many Canadians get the impression we've been lied to by Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives.
I guess the real reason for Proroguing was, indeed, as Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberals have been saying - to try to avoid facing up to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal.
Harper, show some moral fiber and backbone. Stand up and take responsibility for the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal. Call a Judicial Inquiry. Paul Martin did with the sponsorship scandal. Why should Canadian have to suffer this hurt and indignity simply because Harper wants to clutch onto power.
On the other hand, perhaps the logic is by simply re-introducing all this old stuff, it is hard for the Opposition to vote against it - shrewd!
It appears this Throne Speech reveals a serious problem amongst the Conservative movement.
Harper want to stay in power and is doing anything and everything to grasp and maintain it. The Conservative movement wants a consolidated coherent and comprehensive policy and agenda that reflects and promotes their extreme right wing ideology.
However, Harper knows that if he were to do this his days in office would be numbered (to approx. 35). This leaves Harper with only one course and we are seeing it.
But, there's more and it's insidious. Harper, in fact, is using Parliament as a smoke screen (in military parlance, 'diversion'), while he implements his extremist, right wing ideology and re-make Canada into an extremist, right wing, intolerant society by ignoring our Democratic Institutions, disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of Canadians, hamstringing all Institutional supervision and do everything through his Executive powers. One of the prime methods is appointing right wing extremists to every administrative position in sight. Another of course is through the budget as we will see.
It is not the lyrics "in all thy sons command" in Canada's national anthem that requires urgent and serious consideration at this time in our nation's development.
It's "we stand on guard for thee"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
03 March, 2010
Harper - It's Re-Cycling Time
3/3/2010 11:05:44 AM The Globe and Mail
Immigration Minister pulled gay rights from citizenship guide, documents show, The Canadian Press, 3 Mar.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-minister-pulled-gay-rights-from-citizenship-guide-documents-show/article1486935/ Tab 145
Should anyone really be surprised given that Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Peter Van Loan and all the Con's running this great nation of ours are extremist, right wing, ideologies based on intolerance.
As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,”
Likely the reason Kenny had:
"noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005. "
taken out is so when Harper and the Con's reverse these rights and freedoms they would only have to re-do the study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship. They have to look like they are doing something to reduce this record setting deficit.
In this era of environmental consciousness and human rights it simply would not be right (morally, that is) to suggest its 'book burning time' (besides that's such a extremist, right wing, intolerant ideologue, thing to do anyway) - so . . . it book 're-cycling time'.
In fact, it's government re-cycling time, don't you think.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Immigration Minister pulled gay rights from citizenship guide, documents show, The Canadian Press, 3 Mar.'10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-minister-pulled-gay-rights-from-citizenship-guide-documents-show/article1486935/ Tab 145
Should anyone really be surprised given that Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Peter Van Loan and all the Con's running this great nation of ours are extremist, right wing, ideologies based on intolerance.
As Van Loan once said “The professor has a different philosophy than us,”
Likely the reason Kenny had:
"noting that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969; that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation; and that same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2005. "
taken out is so when Harper and the Con's reverse these rights and freedoms they would only have to re-do the study guide for immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship. They have to look like they are doing something to reduce this record setting deficit.
In this era of environmental consciousness and human rights it simply would not be right (morally, that is) to suggest its 'book burning time' (besides that's such a extremist, right wing, intolerant ideologue, thing to do anyway) - so . . . it book 're-cycling time'.
In fact, it's government re-cycling time, don't you think.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
02 March, 2010
- Harper No Class Act
Submitted: 7:14am, PST, 2 Mar.'10 CBC
Best Olympics world has ever seen: Harper, March 2, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/2010/03/01/sp-olympics-folo.html#socialcomments
- Harper A Class Con Act
Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives ought to take a lesson from the class act of not only all our athletes who competed at the Olympics, but all the athletes around the world. At least there is something about Canada that we can point on the world stage to dispel the dark shadow cast by Harper and be proud.
If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.
. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.
Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?
Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada's great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.
(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Best Olympics world has ever seen: Harper, March 2, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/2010/03/01/sp-olympics-folo.html#socialcomments
- Harper A Class Con Act
Stephen Harper and all the Conservatives ought to take a lesson from the class act of not only all our athletes who competed at the Olympics, but all the athletes around the world. At least there is something about Canada that we can point on the world stage to dispel the dark shadow cast by Harper and be proud.
If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.
. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.
Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?
Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada's great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.
(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
01 March, 2010
- Harper should get a Game Misconduct from Parliament
3/1/2010 1:21:16 PM The Globe and Mail, Tab 20
(see Article below)
Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?
If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.
. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.
*** I couldn't resist the Irony in the following Post by 'Blind Vision'
Tab 11: 'If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".'
Like the rest of your post, you've got it wrong.
It's the Liberals that would get a good laugh and in fact the 2/3rds Canadians that voted against Harper and the Con's that would get a good laugh;
and,
anyone whose 'Vision Is Not Blinded' by self-interest but has the good of all Canadians clearly in sight would be offended.
Blind Vision, if you have such confidence of conviction and truly believed what you are writing, why hide behind a fake name.
Also,
DJay, Tab 13, wrote: "Why of course Harper's slide in the polls was going to stop; as soon as it collided with the collective, thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace that has always represented its base; - roughly around 30% to 35%."
It is a mistake to think that all the die-hard Harper and the Con Party supporters are " thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace", besides they are just as entitled to their say as any other. I don't agree that our politics should be based on self-interested, short-sightedness, emotions, irrationality, extreme right wing ideology. But they do have a right to their opinions. It is not their fault Harper is in Power. It the fault of the other 2/3rds of Canadians that stand by and let Harper run things.
Also, I have been posting the die-hard support for Harper and the Con's runs around 33 - 35%, with 33% more recently.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
(see Article below)
Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?
If our Hockey Players had played hockey the way Stephen Harper and the Con's do politics, they would all have been given game misconducts and the teams kicked out of the Olympics.
. . . There's a thought, kick Harper and the Con's out of office.
*** I couldn't resist the Irony in the following Post by 'Blind Vision'
Tab 11: 'If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".'
Like the rest of your post, you've got it wrong.
It's the Liberals that would get a good laugh and in fact the 2/3rds Canadians that voted against Harper and the Con's that would get a good laugh;
and,
anyone whose 'Vision Is Not Blinded' by self-interest but has the good of all Canadians clearly in sight would be offended.
Blind Vision, if you have such confidence of conviction and truly believed what you are writing, why hide behind a fake name.
Also,
DJay, Tab 13, wrote: "Why of course Harper's slide in the polls was going to stop; as soon as it collided with the collective, thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace that has always represented its base; - roughly around 30% to 35%."
It is a mistake to think that all the die-hard Harper and the Con Party supporters are " thick-skulled portion of the Canadian populace", besides they are just as entitled to their say as any other. I don't agree that our politics should be based on self-interested, short-sightedness, emotions, irrationality, extreme right wing ideology. But they do have a right to their opinions. It is not their fault Harper is in Power. It the fault of the other 2/3rds of Canadians that stand by and let Harper run things.
Also, I have been posting the die-hard support for Harper and the Con's runs around 33 - 35%, with 33% more recently.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper's ' Own the Parliament ' Strategy
Posted: 3/1/2010 10:45:56 AM The Globe and Mail
Prorogation 'lit the fuse,' but is furor fizzling? Campbell Clark, Mar. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prorogation-lit-the-fuse-but-is-furor-fizzling/article1485006/ Tab 11
Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?
Prorogation was a cold blooded, self-serving, totally politically motivated act, of a nature that we have come to expect from Stephen Harper and his Con's, the Canadian people be Damned.
Also, every one knows the real reason for Proroguing is to try to shut down investigation of the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up scandal and put some distance behind it. It was either face the music now or face the music later. Harper chose later since, it couldn't be much worse. (After seeing the huge upswell against him and his government because of Prorogation, Harper is now trying to say that he was talked into it and really did want to do it - the 'Devil Made Me Do It' defence)
And, of course, perhaps in the meantime he could convince Canadians of what a great Prime Minister he is by, for example, suggesting that if were not for Harper spending countless (on because the actual amounts are redacted by the Harper government) billions on converting Canada's military to a 'fighting machine', so that he, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, could 'associate themselves' with the military and play soldier, the World would have fallen short in their assistance of Haiti after the earthquake. Harper made this revelation in Haiti the other day - "To do soft power, you need hard power", wow, what a Zen Master, Yoda step aside. He chose Haiti to do this, of course, so the Canadian Media and Opposition Parties could not confront him with the error in his thinking.
Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.
(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).
It is not the political power that is the problem it is the people, Harper and the Cons, to whom we entrusted power, wielding it solely for political purposes.
We can see this with Harper's abuse of the Prorogation power as well. This power has been in the hands of every Prime Minister of Canada since Confederation, including PM who had very large majorities, like Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.
It is only with Harper that we have this crisis in Canadian Democracy and call to bring in rules to limit the arbitrary and self-serving abuse of power by the PM.
It is not the rules that need changing it is the leadership.
The big difference with Harper and the Con's compared to previous governments is that previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Harper is only concerned with power, obtaining it, consolidating it and maintaining it, the Good of Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Prorogation 'lit the fuse,' but is furor fizzling? Campbell Clark, Mar. 01, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prorogation-lit-the-fuse-but-is-furor-fizzling/article1485006/ Tab 11
Never mind whether ' Own the Podium ' has been successful how about Stephen Harper and the Con's ' Own The Parliament ' strategy?
Prorogation was a cold blooded, self-serving, totally politically motivated act, of a nature that we have come to expect from Stephen Harper and his Con's, the Canadian people be Damned.
Also, every one knows the real reason for Proroguing is to try to shut down investigation of the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up scandal and put some distance behind it. It was either face the music now or face the music later. Harper chose later since, it couldn't be much worse. (After seeing the huge upswell against him and his government because of Prorogation, Harper is now trying to say that he was talked into it and really did want to do it - the 'Devil Made Me Do It' defence)
And, of course, perhaps in the meantime he could convince Canadians of what a great Prime Minister he is by, for example, suggesting that if were not for Harper spending countless (on because the actual amounts are redacted by the Harper government) billions on converting Canada's military to a 'fighting machine', so that he, MacKay, O'Connor, et al, could 'associate themselves' with the military and play soldier, the World would have fallen short in their assistance of Haiti after the earthquake. Harper made this revelation in Haiti the other day - "To do soft power, you need hard power", wow, what a Zen Master, Yoda step aside. He chose Haiti to do this, of course, so the Canadian Media and Opposition Parties could not confront him with the error in his thinking.
Now I am sure Harper will tout how he is responsible for Canada great showing at the Olympics - who knows how, perhaps Harper will explain that his heavy handed abuse of Canadian Democratic Institutions, in-your-face statesmanship and hyper political self-serving served as an inspiration to all.
(By the way, congratulations to all the Olympic competitors for making such a great Games, and to all the Canadians, especially our Hockey Teams - it serves as a great example of what the nations of the world can achieve despite politics).
It is not the political power that is the problem it is the people, Harper and the Cons, to whom we entrusted power, wielding it solely for political purposes.
We can see this with Harper's abuse of the Prorogation power as well. This power has been in the hands of every Prime Minister of Canada since Confederation, including PM who had very large majorities, like Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien.
It is only with Harper that we have this crisis in Canadian Democracy and call to bring in rules to limit the arbitrary and self-serving abuse of power by the PM.
It is not the rules that need changing it is the leadership.
The big difference with Harper and the Con's compared to previous governments is that previous PM's had the interests of Canada, all Canadians and the future of this nation, at heart.
Harper has dedicated his career in public life to tearing asunder Confederation. Soon Harper will be saying that the Federal Government is dysfunctional and disband Confederation.
Harper is only concerned with power, obtaining it, consolidating it and maintaining it, the Good of Canada be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)