Posted: 7:51am, PDT, 30 Apr.'10 CBC News
Top general OK with releasing Afghan papers, April 29, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/29/afghan-documents-speakers-ruling-liberals.html
CBC News asked Natynczyk on Thursday, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?"
Natynczyk responded: "Not at all, not at all."
There's something that doesn't add up here.
Does this mean that nobody has asked Natynczyk this question before now???
Natynczyk has not told Harper this before???
If Harper has never asked him this before or Natynczyk has not informed of Harper of this then, on what factual basis is Harper insisting that releasing the documents would threaten our troops.
What about the Parliamentary Committee. Surely if no-one asked him this, Natynczyk ought to have volunteered such important and cogent evidence. I can't remember off-hand, but my impression was that 'The Three Generals' pretty much stone walled and avoided directly answering questions at the Committee.
When Natynczyk held the news conference the next day to clarify his testimony, wouldn't that be a good time for correcting such an omission.
This is another very good reason a full and open Judicial Inquiry is required.
Another, of course, is that even if representatives of Opposition parties in Parliament are allowed to view un-redacted documents, how can they be sure that nothing has been withheld, nothing has been misplaced or 'lost'. The only way is through the power to call witnesses, examine these witnesses and cross-examine these witnesses conducted by people trained, experienced and skilled in such matters.
For example, we might infer that because none of the 'Three Generals' mentioned when they testified on, or about, 8 Dec.'09, that they had no fears of people poring over these documents that they, at that time, must have had such concerns. The fact that they don't now, suggests that whatever it was they had concerns over, no longer gives concerns. The International laws have not changed, domestic laws have not changed, the underlying facts have not changed (based on the belief in the immutability of truth and reality). So, what has changed to cause these concerns to 'disappear', we are left with 'the evidence'.
***
Submitted: 7:55am, PDT, 30 Apr.'10
Also, if Canada's military has no objections, and as many other boggers have suggested, one would think he above anybody else is in a position to know whether it might jeopardize our troops, then from what source is all the resistance coming from and what is the motivation.
It only leaves Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn. We will see what happens in the next week or so.
Harper appears to be clinging to the idea that existing Legislation somehow allows him to hold back documents from Parliament. The Speaker was clear that they don't. Further, they can't. Even if there were a provision that purported to allow this interpretation, the Motion of Parliament that was passed over-rides it and takes precedence.
Harper may try to take it to the Supreme Court. But, it would be very surprising if the Supreme Court were to take jurisdiction - that would run contrary to paramountcy of Parliament. Also, I can't see the Supreme Court wanting to get mixed up in this matter, let alone thrust into the middle.
On the other hand, I found it very surprising that Frank Iacobucci was willing to get mixed up in this. Some astute Parliamentarians have pointed out that Iacobucci is not a judge, is not adjudication on anything. They also point out that he is a lawyer whose client is not Parliament. They suggest that the government is his client.
In reality, Iacobucci is Stephen Harper's lawyer, he takes instructions from Harper and reports to Harper. If there is any question, then answer me this. If Harper and the Con's were to be booted out of power, and they will, hopefully sooner rather than later, what do you think Harper's position would be, if it were to announce that they were releasing this report, assuming it has not been 're-dacted'.
If Parliament has the power to compel production of documents form the government, why not simply pass a motion requiring that the report be handed over, in toto.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
30 April, 2010
29 April, 2010
- Stephen Harper, news flash: Walsh is 'gravely' mistaken
4/29/2010 11:03:00 AM The Globe and Mail
CBC hits back at Tories as latest poll shows 'stasis', Jane Taber, April 29, 2010 8:39 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cbc-hits-back-at-tories-as-latest-poll-shows-stasis/article1550741/ tab 36, 33
In reality this is another vicious personal attack by the Con's on anyone that dares say anything that they don't like.
The attack by John Walsh, the president of the Con Party, that the CBC network has a decidedly Grit bias is pure emotional rhetoric, without a logical underpinning, designed to incite the core of die-hard Con's, who Graves seems to have pinpointed - "the cranky old men in Alberta".
One good indicator is that the Con's are using it to raise funds. If Graves is mistaken on who the die-hard supporters of the Con's are, or what region of Canada they are located, perhaps, the Con party could release info on contributions of $200 and under - no names necessary, simply say postal codes and amounts.
Also, the polls, and not simply Ekos, strongly indicate that Canada is being run by a small minority of voters who are Con supporters, centred in Alberta who are uncompromising, extremist in their views and well in a word, 'die-hard'.
And, one need only look at the extremist, right wing, religious based policies being foistered on Canadians by Harper to see that the Con's are not representing the majority but a small, extremist, religious based, segment of the population.
It is not hard to believe that a national poster would have a handle on such a well defined group of voters and where they are situated.
On the other hand, that the Con support is centred in Alberta is not news and if Graves is telling Ignatieff something new, then the Liberals have far greater problems that what Grave's 'advise' might address.
Whether they are "cranky" I don't know, but perhaps it's based on their response to telephone polling, especially at dinner time - but then I would be classified as cranky too.
It is clear that Graves was merely offering some very obvious and gratuitous advise. If it were pursuant to a professional relationship then Graves may be in serious breach of client confidentiality, I mean really, telling a national newspaper reporter (and G&M at that) your advise to a client. In that case it is the Liberals that should be 'up-in-arms'.
Surely, John Walsh, the president of the Con Party (which is not the 'tory' party - anyone who thinks Stephen Harper and the Con's are the same old tory party that right from Confederation helped build this great nation of our to what it is today, I stand corrected, what it was prior to Jan.'06, is gravely mistaken - pardon the pun) surely can't be saying that a news media favouring one party over another is a bad thing. If I recall, in the '05 - '06 election the Globe and Mail came out and explicitly stated it was supporting the Con's (or was it '04, there's been so many). I don't recall the Con's initiating an vicious personal attacks on the G&M then.
Also, to suggest that with Harper and the Con's it is "Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy" is simply re-iterating a manifest truism.
I point this out just about every day in my Blog and have made many, many posts to the CBC News website illustrating this point. I am a die hard Liberal who has on numerous occasions offered Ignatieff and the Liberals gratuitous, but well founded and serious, advise. I'm a bit offended that none of the Con's has suggested that the CBC is bias because of it. Perhaps if they paid me . . . CBC, I'm willing to find out, if you are, lets talk.
Also, Graves' 'advise' that the Liberals "should invoke a culture war" is simply wrong. Nobody in their right (morally, as opposed to politically, that is) would subscribe to that, now would they Mr. John Walsh, the president of the Con Party.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
CBC hits back at Tories as latest poll shows 'stasis', Jane Taber, April 29, 2010 8:39 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cbc-hits-back-at-tories-as-latest-poll-shows-stasis/article1550741/ tab 36, 33
In reality this is another vicious personal attack by the Con's on anyone that dares say anything that they don't like.
The attack by John Walsh, the president of the Con Party, that the CBC network has a decidedly Grit bias is pure emotional rhetoric, without a logical underpinning, designed to incite the core of die-hard Con's, who Graves seems to have pinpointed - "the cranky old men in Alberta".
One good indicator is that the Con's are using it to raise funds. If Graves is mistaken on who the die-hard supporters of the Con's are, or what region of Canada they are located, perhaps, the Con party could release info on contributions of $200 and under - no names necessary, simply say postal codes and amounts.
Also, the polls, and not simply Ekos, strongly indicate that Canada is being run by a small minority of voters who are Con supporters, centred in Alberta who are uncompromising, extremist in their views and well in a word, 'die-hard'.
And, one need only look at the extremist, right wing, religious based policies being foistered on Canadians by Harper to see that the Con's are not representing the majority but a small, extremist, religious based, segment of the population.
It is not hard to believe that a national poster would have a handle on such a well defined group of voters and where they are situated.
On the other hand, that the Con support is centred in Alberta is not news and if Graves is telling Ignatieff something new, then the Liberals have far greater problems that what Grave's 'advise' might address.
Whether they are "cranky" I don't know, but perhaps it's based on their response to telephone polling, especially at dinner time - but then I would be classified as cranky too.
It is clear that Graves was merely offering some very obvious and gratuitous advise. If it were pursuant to a professional relationship then Graves may be in serious breach of client confidentiality, I mean really, telling a national newspaper reporter (and G&M at that) your advise to a client. In that case it is the Liberals that should be 'up-in-arms'.
Surely, John Walsh, the president of the Con Party (which is not the 'tory' party - anyone who thinks Stephen Harper and the Con's are the same old tory party that right from Confederation helped build this great nation of our to what it is today, I stand corrected, what it was prior to Jan.'06, is gravely mistaken - pardon the pun) surely can't be saying that a news media favouring one party over another is a bad thing. If I recall, in the '05 - '06 election the Globe and Mail came out and explicitly stated it was supporting the Con's (or was it '04, there's been so many). I don't recall the Con's initiating an vicious personal attacks on the G&M then.
Also, to suggest that with Harper and the Con's it is "Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy" is simply re-iterating a manifest truism.
I point this out just about every day in my Blog and have made many, many posts to the CBC News website illustrating this point. I am a die hard Liberal who has on numerous occasions offered Ignatieff and the Liberals gratuitous, but well founded and serious, advise. I'm a bit offended that none of the Con's has suggested that the CBC is bias because of it. Perhaps if they paid me . . . CBC, I'm willing to find out, if you are, lets talk.
Also, Graves' 'advise' that the Liberals "should invoke a culture war" is simply wrong. Nobody in their right (morally, as opposed to politically, that is) would subscribe to that, now would they Mr. John Walsh, the president of the Con Party.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
28 April, 2010
- 'Ding-Dong the wicked witch is dead' . . . oh, sorry, must have been dreaming.
Submitted: 7:40am, PDT, 28 Apr.'10, CBC News
Afghan records denial is privilege breach: Speaker
Milliken gives government 2 weeks to find compromise over document release
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/27/afghan-detainee-documents-speaker-milliken-privilege-ruling.html#socialcomments-submit
Now all we have to do is get Harper to stop Proroguing Parliament . . . and dissolving Parliament to save his political skin (which may happen sooner rather than later) and generally doing everything for political purposes and Canada as a nation and Canadians be damned, and answering questions with vicious personal attacks instead of serious and informative response, and obscuring and obstructing the access to information, and inflicting Harper's personal religious beliefs on all of Canadians, and dismantling Federalism, and abdicating responsibilities creating a void of national coordinated action requiring the Provinces to fill (e.g. global warming and environment), and introducing superficial ad hoc and disjointed 'micro' provisions touting them as important general policies (e.g. 'getting tough on crime') and depleting the Federal coffers by bogus tax reduction policies designed for their appeal as opposed to what is fiscally sound (e.g. reducing the GST), disenfranchising a whole segment of the Canadian population (e.g Quebec) and governing for the benefit of a small segment of the population (extreme right wingers, esp. Alberta), insidiously insinuation of Harper's extreme right wing ideology in Canadian society through countless and widely disbursed political appointments, shunning Canadians duty to its youth, its poor, its elderly, . . .
***
Submitted: 7:53am, 28 Apr.'10, CBC News
Nicholson: "The government will not knowingly break the laws that were written and passed by Parliament"
Wrong Nicholson,
Parliament is supreme and the government must oblige its request. As Milliken pointed out, Parliament power is not impinged upon by general provisions of legislation of the nature Harper, MacKay, Nicholson, Day are referring to to shield them from the possible political liability of letting the truth be known.
If Harper, MacKay, Hawn, O'Connor, are not using national security to save their skins then they will easily be able to come to some arrangement for obeying Parliament request and preserving national security. If they are using it to save their skins then we all better get ready for an election. The only things that could save their skins in that case is a majority.
Of course, one big problem is knowing whether documents are being withheld from any Parliament representative. Anyone who thinks this is not a real possibility may be in for a rude awakening.
***
Submitted: 7:56am, 28 Apr.'10 CBC News
The 'dark side' of the Milliken ruling is the possibility of Parliament restricting its authority through legislation. Harper only needs a majority to pass such legislation, transfer powers to the PM and plunge Canada into a 'dictatorial democracy'.
I disagree with this aspect of his ruling. In Canadian Democracy there is legislation, Constitution (and Charter) and tradition. Parliament's supremacy is derived from tradition, that is what Milliken means by
"Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded."
"Earned" of course refers to hundreds of years of struggle and civil war until our current parliamentary system was established with Parliament supreme. Legislation can not impinge on this nor can an amendment to the Constitution. The only thing that can alter this is the complete re-alignment of our political and social system the likes of which one sees from civil war.
This is one reason why tradition is not 'encapsulated', the process used to encapsulating it can also be used to change it. It is the common threat that runs from generation to generation which we as temporary inhabitants may not alter. Harper may rack up crippling debt, refuse to act on global warming, infuse extreme right wing ideology into our society that will adversely affect our children and our children's children for generations, but he can not make us a dictatorship without civil war.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Afghan records denial is privilege breach: Speaker
Milliken gives government 2 weeks to find compromise over document release
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/27/afghan-detainee-documents-speaker-milliken-privilege-ruling.html#socialcomments-submit
Now all we have to do is get Harper to stop Proroguing Parliament . . . and dissolving Parliament to save his political skin (which may happen sooner rather than later) and generally doing everything for political purposes and Canada as a nation and Canadians be damned, and answering questions with vicious personal attacks instead of serious and informative response, and obscuring and obstructing the access to information, and inflicting Harper's personal religious beliefs on all of Canadians, and dismantling Federalism, and abdicating responsibilities creating a void of national coordinated action requiring the Provinces to fill (e.g. global warming and environment), and introducing superficial ad hoc and disjointed 'micro' provisions touting them as important general policies (e.g. 'getting tough on crime') and depleting the Federal coffers by bogus tax reduction policies designed for their appeal as opposed to what is fiscally sound (e.g. reducing the GST), disenfranchising a whole segment of the Canadian population (e.g Quebec) and governing for the benefit of a small segment of the population (extreme right wingers, esp. Alberta), insidiously insinuation of Harper's extreme right wing ideology in Canadian society through countless and widely disbursed political appointments, shunning Canadians duty to its youth, its poor, its elderly, . . .
***
Submitted: 7:53am, 28 Apr.'10, CBC News
Nicholson: "The government will not knowingly break the laws that were written and passed by Parliament"
Wrong Nicholson,
Parliament is supreme and the government must oblige its request. As Milliken pointed out, Parliament power is not impinged upon by general provisions of legislation of the nature Harper, MacKay, Nicholson, Day are referring to to shield them from the possible political liability of letting the truth be known.
If Harper, MacKay, Hawn, O'Connor, are not using national security to save their skins then they will easily be able to come to some arrangement for obeying Parliament request and preserving national security. If they are using it to save their skins then we all better get ready for an election. The only things that could save their skins in that case is a majority.
Of course, one big problem is knowing whether documents are being withheld from any Parliament representative. Anyone who thinks this is not a real possibility may be in for a rude awakening.
***
Submitted: 7:56am, 28 Apr.'10 CBC News
The 'dark side' of the Milliken ruling is the possibility of Parliament restricting its authority through legislation. Harper only needs a majority to pass such legislation, transfer powers to the PM and plunge Canada into a 'dictatorial democracy'.
I disagree with this aspect of his ruling. In Canadian Democracy there is legislation, Constitution (and Charter) and tradition. Parliament's supremacy is derived from tradition, that is what Milliken means by
"Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded."
"Earned" of course refers to hundreds of years of struggle and civil war until our current parliamentary system was established with Parliament supreme. Legislation can not impinge on this nor can an amendment to the Constitution. The only thing that can alter this is the complete re-alignment of our political and social system the likes of which one sees from civil war.
This is one reason why tradition is not 'encapsulated', the process used to encapsulating it can also be used to change it. It is the common threat that runs from generation to generation which we as temporary inhabitants may not alter. Harper may rack up crippling debt, refuse to act on global warming, infuse extreme right wing ideology into our society that will adversely affect our children and our children's children for generations, but he can not make us a dictatorship without civil war.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 April, 2010
- Harper, Canada's Religious Leader???
Posted: 7:23am, 27 Apr.'10 CBC News
Oda opens G8 meeting in Halifax, April 27, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/27/g8-oda-introduction.html Tab 10
Bob Rae is right (morally right that is).
Stephen Harper and the Con's are basing their policies on very narrow non-secular agenda. We have seen this blurring of the State and religion numerous times from Harper.
Of course that is what extremism, intolerance is all about. What's insidious is that it is religious based.
Policies ought to be based on rational considerations based on the facts and for the good of all, not emotionalism and the religious beliefs of a few. Canada is not Iran.
Surely abortion is a question of personal conscience. Why is that Harper knows what is good and bad for me and everyone else in the world. Why is it he has the right to dictate to me what is good and bad. He's a politician, for God's sake. He hasn't been anointed as the religious leader of Canada. If we are going to be a non-secular State I would rather Canada be run by the Pope, at least I can trust him.
By blurring religion and the State and implementing such religiously based policies Harper and the Con's are in fact imposing their religious beliefs on me and all Canadians, and thus restricting my freedom to practice my religion.
Clearly this is a violation of the Charter and which is not demonstrably justified in a free and democracy society (2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion)
If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. 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".
And we all know where the US stands on this issue.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Oda opens G8 meeting in Halifax, April 27, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/27/g8-oda-introduction.html Tab 10
Bob Rae is right (morally right that is).
Stephen Harper and the Con's are basing their policies on very narrow non-secular agenda. We have seen this blurring of the State and religion numerous times from Harper.
Of course that is what extremism, intolerance is all about. What's insidious is that it is religious based.
Policies ought to be based on rational considerations based on the facts and for the good of all, not emotionalism and the religious beliefs of a few. Canada is not Iran.
Surely abortion is a question of personal conscience. Why is that Harper knows what is good and bad for me and everyone else in the world. Why is it he has the right to dictate to me what is good and bad. He's a politician, for God's sake. He hasn't been anointed as the religious leader of Canada. If we are going to be a non-secular State I would rather Canada be run by the Pope, at least I can trust him.
By blurring religion and the State and implementing such religiously based policies Harper and the Con's are in fact imposing their religious beliefs on me and all Canadians, and thus restricting my freedom to practice my religion.
Clearly this is a violation of the Charter and which is not demonstrably justified in a free and democracy society (2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion)
If abortion is not made available then women, especially young women, can find themselves in the hands of illegal butchers. 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".
And we all know where the US stands on this issue.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 April, 2010
- Harper : 'Jaffer-Gate' ('Jaffer-Gate'??? - hey, you hear it first here, folks, I think)
Posted: 4/26/2010 10:23:22 AM The Globe and Mail
After apparent contradictions, MPs want to grill Rahim Jaffer again, Gloria Galloway, Apr. 25, 2010 6:32PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/after-apparent-contradictions-mps-want-to-grill-rahim-jaffer-again/article1546263/ tab: 13
The big thing with the Guergis-Jaffer affair is that the indications are that there is a lot more to it than has been brought to light. And, it may even go to the Prime Minister and senior Ministers like John Baird and Jim Prentice. Given how Harper came to power, his viscous personal attacks on Liberals, his self righteous and extremely dishonest promises of transparency, openness, eliminating corruption, etc. This issue is very important to wake Canadians up to just exactly what Harper and his Con's stand for and the damage they are doing to our way of life.
What Harper knew about the Guergis' and Jaffer's activities, if there was anything to know, and when is a very serious question.
Harper's general approach of stonewalling, secrecy, obscuration, obstruction, denial, co-ordinated viscous attack of anyone who might dare to stand up to him makes him susceptible of suspicious of cover-up.
Ignatieff is right (morally) when he says that if Harper insists in conducting the government of Canada in such a fashion then he must expect to attract suspicion. In other words, there is really only one reason a person carrying on in such a fashion, they have something to hide. So, when they are accused of hiding something it does not lie in their moth to complain.
When one looks at Harper's position right from the time Jaffer was arrested and Guergis had that meltdown in Charlottetown until now, one can wonder if there is a lot more that Harper knew right from the start.
Harper defended Guergis adamantly until all of a sudden right after the Star Investigative Report about Jaffer and insinuations of influence peddling. To say he took a 180 degree reversal is an understatement. Also, it makes little rational sense, to me anyway, on the face of it that Guergis would resign from her Ministerial Post and Harper kick her out of the Caucus.
There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.
When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council. What is the likelihood that this letter didn't get back to the higher echelons of the Con party and thus Harper.
Harper had considerable motive in keeping anything he might so learn secret. This is not simply for the embarrassment to his administration, which would be enough in itself. But, Guergis holds a key and strategic seat (Simcoe-Gray) in rural Ontario which she took from the Liberals in 2004 as the result of a Liberal scandal. Rural Ontario and the 905 area represent the key to a Con majority, especially since they have pretty much written-off Quebec. This is the heart of "Tim Horton Country" and they are very sensitive to scandal in their government, as everyone should be
Another interesting thing is Jaffer losing his seat in Edmonton in the '08 election (before his charges in Sep.'09) which he had held in '97. Anyone wonder why a Con of such long standing and integration in the Con Party could lose his seat in the heartland of the Cons, other than the NDP having a very good and qualified candidate. If I were part of the Liberal Brain Trust I'd be looking into that, big time.
17 Apr.'10 Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
After apparent contradictions, MPs want to grill Rahim Jaffer again, Gloria Galloway, Apr. 25, 2010 6:32PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/after-apparent-contradictions-mps-want-to-grill-rahim-jaffer-again/article1546263/ tab: 13
The big thing with the Guergis-Jaffer affair is that the indications are that there is a lot more to it than has been brought to light. And, it may even go to the Prime Minister and senior Ministers like John Baird and Jim Prentice. Given how Harper came to power, his viscous personal attacks on Liberals, his self righteous and extremely dishonest promises of transparency, openness, eliminating corruption, etc. This issue is very important to wake Canadians up to just exactly what Harper and his Con's stand for and the damage they are doing to our way of life.
What Harper knew about the Guergis' and Jaffer's activities, if there was anything to know, and when is a very serious question.
Harper's general approach of stonewalling, secrecy, obscuration, obstruction, denial, co-ordinated viscous attack of anyone who might dare to stand up to him makes him susceptible of suspicious of cover-up.
Ignatieff is right (morally) when he says that if Harper insists in conducting the government of Canada in such a fashion then he must expect to attract suspicion. In other words, there is really only one reason a person carrying on in such a fashion, they have something to hide. So, when they are accused of hiding something it does not lie in their moth to complain.
When one looks at Harper's position right from the time Jaffer was arrested and Guergis had that meltdown in Charlottetown until now, one can wonder if there is a lot more that Harper knew right from the start.
Harper defended Guergis adamantly until all of a sudden right after the Star Investigative Report about Jaffer and insinuations of influence peddling. To say he took a 180 degree reversal is an understatement. Also, it makes little rational sense, to me anyway, on the face of it that Guergis would resign from her Ministerial Post and Harper kick her out of the Caucus.
There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.
When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council. What is the likelihood that this letter didn't get back to the higher echelons of the Con party and thus Harper.
Harper had considerable motive in keeping anything he might so learn secret. This is not simply for the embarrassment to his administration, which would be enough in itself. But, Guergis holds a key and strategic seat (Simcoe-Gray) in rural Ontario which she took from the Liberals in 2004 as the result of a Liberal scandal. Rural Ontario and the 905 area represent the key to a Con majority, especially since they have pretty much written-off Quebec. This is the heart of "Tim Horton Country" and they are very sensitive to scandal in their government, as everyone should be
Another interesting thing is Jaffer losing his seat in Edmonton in the '08 election (before his charges in Sep.'09) which he had held in '97. Anyone wonder why a Con of such long standing and integration in the Con Party could lose his seat in the heartland of the Cons, other than the NDP having a very good and qualified candidate. If I were part of the Liberal Brain Trust I'd be looking into that, big time.
17 Apr.'10 Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
24 April, 2010
- Harper: 'Let Them Eat Cake', I mean, Keep them Distracted on Guergis-Jaffer Affair
Excerpts submitted: 7:28am, & 10:08am, PDT, 24 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Travers: Scandal noise hides political silence, April 24, 2010, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/799904--travers-scandal-noise-hides-political-silence#article
The big thing with the Guergis-Jaffer affair is that the indications are that there is a lot more to it than has been brought to light. And, it may even go to the Prime Minister and senior Ministers like John Baird and Jim Prentice. Given how Harper came to power, his viscous personal attacks on Liberals, his self righteous and extremely dishonest promises of transparency, openness, eliminating corruption, etc. This issue is very important to wake Canadians up to just exactly what Harper and his Con's stand for and the damage they are doing to our way of life.
However, The Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and the Speaker of the House' upcoming ruling is probably the most important issue for Canadians as a country since the Charter of Rights. Ignatieff should be going coast to coast meeting Canadians and discussion this one issue and its importance, explaining how the Canadian Parliamentary system works, why it is very different from the US Presidential system with its built in check and balances, and why parliamentary paramountcy is vital preventing the PM from becoming 'king'.
It seems that Canadian troops may 'leave' active combat to work with and support the Afghan police (a rose by any other name . . .). Given the degree to which the Taliban target police in Afghanistan, I'm not sure there would be much of a change in practical terms. Then there's the Congo déjà vu.
***
Excerpts submitted: 7:38am, PDT, 24 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Canada should be discussing what will happen to Canada's Health Care system after the agreement made by Paul Martin that expires in 2014. More important is the trend in Alberta to oppose any equalization payments flowing out of the province.
vis.: "Medicare and the Canada Health Act will be kept on life support until 2014 thanks to former Prime Minister Paul Martin's 2004, 10-year health accord. It gave the provinces an additional $41 billion cash to reduce wait times.
But four years from now, all bets will be off. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged not to touch the accord while it exists. But he is a constitutional strict constructionist. If he is still in power in 2014, he will likely move swiftly to terminate Ottawa's role in health care, which he considers an exclusive provincial jurisdiction."
(Ignatieff blows best opportunity, Frances Russell, 14/04/2010, Winnipeg Free Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/ignatieff-blows-best-opportunity-90816469.html)
The Equalization payments is another issue that ought to be debated right now, before its too late. There is no doubt that Harper and the Con's are in favour of eliminating it. Not only does it fall in libne with harper's life-long goal of tearing Canada asunder. It is a big 'pay-off' for his core of die-hard supporters in Alberta. Consider how fast the deficit would be reduced if transfers were eliminated. Consider how much Harper could reduce taxes.
Stelmach: "Alberta pays a lot more money in federal taxes than it receives, yet the province is criticized for its vast energy wealth, which helps many other Canadians, said the premier on Thursday."
(Alberta to chase feds on equalization
Last Updated: Thursday, January 14, 2010 | 9:26 PM ET .CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/14/alberta-equalization-cabinet-stelmach-morton-liepert-oil.html )
One need only look at how hard it is to increase taxes after it has been reduced, even wrongfully like the 2 points off the GST.
What do you think Albertans reactions would be if a government tried to re-instate the equalization payments, once they had been eliminated and the taxes reduced.
"You want fairness? Great. Here's some fairness: Alberta has decided that if it's going to get crapped on by other provinces, maybe it shouldn't be handing over billions of dollars a year to those same . . ."
(
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/15/alberta-s-answer-to-emissions-problem-stop-flying-equalization-money-to-ontario-and-quebec.aspx
Alberta's answer to emissions problem: Stop flying equalization money to Ontario and Quebec, January 15, 2010)
***
Submitted: 10:04 am PDT, 24 Apr.'10
landscape wrote 11:59 AM " Lloyd 10:38: Ontario has never recieved equalisation payments since the 40's. Alot of Canada has recieved a lot of money from Ontarian tax payers."
Landscape.
I can remember not too long ago Premier McGuinty pointing out that 23 billion was flowing out of Ontario due to transfer payments.
Vis.: In 2005: "McGuinty also launched a campaign to narrow the so-called '$23 billion gap' between what Ontario contributes to the federal government and what is returned to Ontario in services."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_McGuinty)
Now Ontario meets the definition of a 'have not' province.
If anyone in Ontario thinks that Harper will somehow defend Ontario's interest in this, they are in a for a rude awakening. For Harper and the Con's it's Alberta all the way. They are the reason he is in power and that's the reason they put him in power. Oh, yah, to get rid of the Gun Registry, which Harper doesn't even have the nerve to make part of his legislative agenda.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Travers: Scandal noise hides political silence, April 24, 2010, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/799904--travers-scandal-noise-hides-political-silence#article
The big thing with the Guergis-Jaffer affair is that the indications are that there is a lot more to it than has been brought to light. And, it may even go to the Prime Minister and senior Ministers like John Baird and Jim Prentice. Given how Harper came to power, his viscous personal attacks on Liberals, his self righteous and extremely dishonest promises of transparency, openness, eliminating corruption, etc. This issue is very important to wake Canadians up to just exactly what Harper and his Con's stand for and the damage they are doing to our way of life.
However, The Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and the Speaker of the House' upcoming ruling is probably the most important issue for Canadians as a country since the Charter of Rights. Ignatieff should be going coast to coast meeting Canadians and discussion this one issue and its importance, explaining how the Canadian Parliamentary system works, why it is very different from the US Presidential system with its built in check and balances, and why parliamentary paramountcy is vital preventing the PM from becoming 'king'.
It seems that Canadian troops may 'leave' active combat to work with and support the Afghan police (a rose by any other name . . .). Given the degree to which the Taliban target police in Afghanistan, I'm not sure there would be much of a change in practical terms. Then there's the Congo déjà vu.
***
Excerpts submitted: 7:38am, PDT, 24 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Canada should be discussing what will happen to Canada's Health Care system after the agreement made by Paul Martin that expires in 2014. More important is the trend in Alberta to oppose any equalization payments flowing out of the province.
vis.: "Medicare and the Canada Health Act will be kept on life support until 2014 thanks to former Prime Minister Paul Martin's 2004, 10-year health accord. It gave the provinces an additional $41 billion cash to reduce wait times.
But four years from now, all bets will be off. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged not to touch the accord while it exists. But he is a constitutional strict constructionist. If he is still in power in 2014, he will likely move swiftly to terminate Ottawa's role in health care, which he considers an exclusive provincial jurisdiction."
(Ignatieff blows best opportunity, Frances Russell, 14/04/2010, Winnipeg Free Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/ignatieff-blows-best-opportunity-90816469.html)
The Equalization payments is another issue that ought to be debated right now, before its too late. There is no doubt that Harper and the Con's are in favour of eliminating it. Not only does it fall in libne with harper's life-long goal of tearing Canada asunder. It is a big 'pay-off' for his core of die-hard supporters in Alberta. Consider how fast the deficit would be reduced if transfers were eliminated. Consider how much Harper could reduce taxes.
Stelmach: "Alberta pays a lot more money in federal taxes than it receives, yet the province is criticized for its vast energy wealth, which helps many other Canadians, said the premier on Thursday."
(Alberta to chase feds on equalization
Last Updated: Thursday, January 14, 2010 | 9:26 PM ET .CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/01/14/alberta-equalization-cabinet-stelmach-morton-liepert-oil.html )
One need only look at how hard it is to increase taxes after it has been reduced, even wrongfully like the 2 points off the GST.
What do you think Albertans reactions would be if a government tried to re-instate the equalization payments, once they had been eliminated and the taxes reduced.
"You want fairness? Great. Here's some fairness: Alberta has decided that if it's going to get crapped on by other provinces, maybe it shouldn't be handing over billions of dollars a year to those same . . ."
(
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/15/alberta-s-answer-to-emissions-problem-stop-flying-equalization-money-to-ontario-and-quebec.aspx
Alberta's answer to emissions problem: Stop flying equalization money to Ontario and Quebec, January 15, 2010)
***
Submitted: 10:04 am PDT, 24 Apr.'10
landscape wrote 11:59 AM " Lloyd 10:38: Ontario has never recieved equalisation payments since the 40's. Alot of Canada has recieved a lot of money from Ontarian tax payers."
Landscape.
I can remember not too long ago Premier McGuinty pointing out that 23 billion was flowing out of Ontario due to transfer payments.
Vis.: In 2005: "McGuinty also launched a campaign to narrow the so-called '$23 billion gap' between what Ontario contributes to the federal government and what is returned to Ontario in services."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_McGuinty)
Now Ontario meets the definition of a 'have not' province.
If anyone in Ontario thinks that Harper will somehow defend Ontario's interest in this, they are in a for a rude awakening. For Harper and the Con's it's Alberta all the way. They are the reason he is in power and that's the reason they put him in power. Oh, yah, to get rid of the Gun Registry, which Harper doesn't even have the nerve to make part of his legislative agenda.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
23 April, 2010
- Harper: 'The people of Canada have a different philosophy than us' -continued
Posted: 4/22/2010 12:57:37 PM The Globe and Mail - see below
I don't recall Harper, Van Loan, Day, Toews, Baird or any other of the inner circle suggesting that this is not a whipped vote.
The reason is obvious.
To suggest that it is not, would be the height of hypocrisy and another example of Harper and the Con's deception at its worst.
Every knows that the Con MP's don't turn around to go p... without Harper's permission and one of Harper's peóns (excuse the pun) watching and taking note (although they seemed to have fallen down on the job with Jaffer and Guergis). What Con MP would dare vote against Harper on anything.
In fact when you take a look at the vicious personal attacks on those than might stand up to oppose, Harper and the Con's have taken 'whipped vote' to new heights - not just the Con MP's, but he is trying to whip the die-hard Con supporters into a frenzy and trying to 'whip' (figuratively) his opponents in the media for being bad boys and girls.
"smothering democracy" is the hallmark of the Harper administration.
So, don't suggest to me that it is not a "whipped" vote for Harper or that Harper is not smothering democracy, I've simply been around too long to be taken in by that one.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
***
4/23/2010 10:45:10 AM PM The Globe and Mail - see below
[redacted] writes 4/22/2010 8:07:59 PM:
"Loyd writes . . .
I don't recall Harper . . . suggesting that this is not a whipped vote.
well of COURSE you don't. All votes are free votes, unless specifically made to be whipped votes by declaration."
Apparently that's not your real name.
If you have such a strong conviction in the morality of your opinion then why an alias.
Also, it's "Lloyd"
All Con MP's are whipped by Harper. This 'whipping' must be overtly removed before Con MP's would dare vote their conscience.
This is very well know and undisputed. Just today there is are article discussing this very point:
"The same plums-and-pain management technique has turned the prime minister's caucus into craven courtiers, vigorously bowing and scraping in hopes of entry to the bloated cabinet -- whose members vigorously bow and scrape to avoid removal. But even if they had some pride, it would not matter. The caucus cannot change the party's leadership, and so, like beaten dogs, they have no choice but to lick"
(
"The man who would be king", Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/would+king/2941101/story.html
)
[redacted] suggests: "cpc is far more democratic"
When it started the Reform Party was a grass roots party.
But, Harper and the Con's are no longer a grass roots party.
It is very much a top-down tyranny, where Harper has deliberately abandoned core conservative values in order to cling onto power. If he tried to openly promote these right wing, extremist, intolerant values, Canadians would boot him out of office. Harper is very much aware of this.
This Bill is a prime example. Harper would not introduce it as part of the Con policies, so, in his deceptive fashion, had it released as a private member's bill. Another recent example is the International family health policy re family planning and abortion.
True conservatives know this and are starting to do something about it. How about you, you seem like a true conservative.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
I don't recall Harper, Van Loan, Day, Toews, Baird or any other of the inner circle suggesting that this is not a whipped vote.
The reason is obvious.
To suggest that it is not, would be the height of hypocrisy and another example of Harper and the Con's deception at its worst.
Every knows that the Con MP's don't turn around to go p... without Harper's permission and one of Harper's peóns (excuse the pun) watching and taking note (although they seemed to have fallen down on the job with Jaffer and Guergis). What Con MP would dare vote against Harper on anything.
In fact when you take a look at the vicious personal attacks on those than might stand up to oppose, Harper and the Con's have taken 'whipped vote' to new heights - not just the Con MP's, but he is trying to whip the die-hard Con supporters into a frenzy and trying to 'whip' (figuratively) his opponents in the media for being bad boys and girls.
"smothering democracy" is the hallmark of the Harper administration.
So, don't suggest to me that it is not a "whipped" vote for Harper or that Harper is not smothering democracy, I've simply been around too long to be taken in by that one.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
***
4/23/2010 10:45:10 AM PM The Globe and Mail - see below
[redacted] writes 4/22/2010 8:07:59 PM:
"Loyd writes . . .
I don't recall Harper . . . suggesting that this is not a whipped vote.
well of COURSE you don't. All votes are free votes, unless specifically made to be whipped votes by declaration."
Apparently that's not your real name.
If you have such a strong conviction in the morality of your opinion then why an alias.
Also, it's "Lloyd"
All Con MP's are whipped by Harper. This 'whipping' must be overtly removed before Con MP's would dare vote their conscience.
This is very well know and undisputed. Just today there is are article discussing this very point:
"The same plums-and-pain management technique has turned the prime minister's caucus into craven courtiers, vigorously bowing and scraping in hopes of entry to the bloated cabinet -- whose members vigorously bow and scrape to avoid removal. But even if they had some pride, it would not matter. The caucus cannot change the party's leadership, and so, like beaten dogs, they have no choice but to lick"
(
"The man who would be king", Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen, April 23, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/would+king/2941101/story.html
)
[redacted] suggests: "cpc is far more democratic"
When it started the Reform Party was a grass roots party.
But, Harper and the Con's are no longer a grass roots party.
It is very much a top-down tyranny, where Harper has deliberately abandoned core conservative values in order to cling onto power. If he tried to openly promote these right wing, extremist, intolerant values, Canadians would boot him out of office. Harper is very much aware of this.
This Bill is a prime example. Harper would not introduce it as part of the Con policies, so, in his deceptive fashion, had it released as a private member's bill. Another recent example is the International family health policy re family planning and abortion.
True conservatives know this and are starting to do something about it. How about you, you seem like a true conservative.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
22 April, 2010
- Harper: 'The people of Canada have a different philosophy than us'
Posted: 4/22/2010 10:17:09 AM The Globe and Mail
A gun to the heads of the Liberal caucus, The Globe and Mail, 22 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/a-gun-to-the-heads-of-the-liberal-caucus/article1542451/ Tab 2
The last vote on this Bill where 8 Liberals supported it, represents Harper and the Con's deception at its worst (well one, of many, of its worst's).
Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan response, we had the Report "for several days".
Some of the Liberals and NDP voted in favour of the Bill so that it would go to Committee where it could be reviewed. Sounds reasonable, especially when it was done in the absence of the RCMP Report.
Being logical and basing your vote on rational considerations, taking the good of all Canadians into consideration should be encouraged in our leaders. This is the exact opposite of the extremist, narrow, ideologically based, my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-right-you're-wrong, what benefits the few and Canadian be damned approach that is the hallmark of Harper, Van Loan (of, "The professor has a different philosophy than us,” fame), the Con Party and their die-hard supporters. If ever there were a wedge issue this is it.
Perhaps the Gun Registry should be re-visited but lets be rational about it. Lets demand Harper and the Con's release all the relevant information, stop their vicious attacks on those that dare oppose them, cease and desist their propaganda machine. Harper and the Con's are taking their position to satisfy their Western and rural die-hard base. Lets find out what is best, not for these few but for all Canadians as a whole. Since when did Alberta rule . . . oh, yah, sorry, since Harper and the Con's came into power.
Also, how can the Harper government claim victory when it was a private member's bill. Surely the Harper Government could have introduced the Bill and part of their official agenda. Everyone, especially true conservatives, should take note of this. It clearly represents a backing away of true conservative values by Harper for the sole purpose of maintaining power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
A gun to the heads of the Liberal caucus, The Globe and Mail, 22 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/a-gun-to-the-heads-of-the-liberal-caucus/article1542451/ Tab 2
The last vote on this Bill where 8 Liberals supported it, represents Harper and the Con's deception at its worst (well one, of many, of its worst's).
Access to Information has revealed that the then-public safety minister Peter Van Loan sat on the RCMP report on the Gun registry until after the vote. The paper trail shows that the Report was received by him on 18 September. It ought to have been released in 15 sitting days but was help up by Van Loan until 6 November, after the vote. Van Loan response, we had the Report "for several days".
Some of the Liberals and NDP voted in favour of the Bill so that it would go to Committee where it could be reviewed. Sounds reasonable, especially when it was done in the absence of the RCMP Report.
Being logical and basing your vote on rational considerations, taking the good of all Canadians into consideration should be encouraged in our leaders. This is the exact opposite of the extremist, narrow, ideologically based, my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-right-you're-wrong, what benefits the few and Canadian be damned approach that is the hallmark of Harper, Van Loan (of, "The professor has a different philosophy than us,” fame), the Con Party and their die-hard supporters. If ever there were a wedge issue this is it.
Perhaps the Gun Registry should be re-visited but lets be rational about it. Lets demand Harper and the Con's release all the relevant information, stop their vicious attacks on those that dare oppose them, cease and desist their propaganda machine. Harper and the Con's are taking their position to satisfy their Western and rural die-hard base. Lets find out what is best, not for these few but for all Canadians as a whole. Since when did Alberta rule . . . oh, yah, sorry, since Harper and the Con's came into power.
Also, how can the Harper government claim victory when it was a private member's bill. Surely the Harper Government could have introduced the Bill and part of their official agenda. Everyone, especially true conservatives, should take note of this. It clearly represents a backing away of true conservative values by Harper for the sole purpose of maintaining power.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 April, 2010
- Harper to MPC Commission 'Never mind the Facts, Just Make A Decision'
Submitted: 9:46am, PDT, 21 Apr.'10 CBC News
Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/20/afghanistan-detainees-commission.htmlTab 48
***
Transcript excerpts from the April 13, 2010, hearings on detainees at the Military Police Complaints Commission follow:
Diplomat Richard Colvin: "If we had access to the un-redacted version then there would be some crucial information, additional information which we obviously don’t have because of the redactions."
Justice Department lawyer Alain Préfontaine: "I have had access to the un-redacted document. I don’t see there anything that is missing or crucial or important."
Colvin: "Well I am afraid you are acknowledging that you are new to this issue because if you were someone who was involved in this file, involved in Afghanistan, involved in this issue, what has been redacted is extremely important and it is critical to understanding that there is nothing particularly subtle about this message. I don’t agree that it’s a subtle signal."
...
Préfontaine: "The commission will decide whether it was too subtle for the reader to pick up your meaning."
Colvin: "I think the commissioner is only given the redacted version so he may have some difficulty fully assessing the subtlety or lack thereof of this report."
Préfontaine: "I realize it’s difficult for the commission to have to contend without ability of independent verification of what you say, or for that matter, what I say."
Colvin: "I am fully prepared for the commissioner to see the un-redacted version and to form his own opinion."
Préfontaine: "So would I. But it’s not my call to make, Mr. Colvin."
Military Police Complaints Commission chairmain Glenn Stannard: "Did you say the information contained in the un-redacted [version] really isn’t critical – or did I misread that?"
Préfontaine: "No, you didn’t Mr. Stannard."
Stannard: "Just a real silly question then: any reason why we don’t have it? "
Préfontaine: "Because disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
Stannard: "Even though it’s not critical information?"
Préfontaine: "Well it might be that the information has nothing to do with what Mr. Colvin makes it out to be."
...
Colvin: “Obviously critical information has been removed by the censor. And I’m not allowed to speak to what’s behind the blacked-out portions. So I am not sure what good it is to read simply read the little bits which the censor decided is available to the Canadian public.”
Préfontaine: “Because at the end of the day, Mr. Colvin, this commission is going to be asked to pass judgment on the actions of some on the basis of this material. That’s why.”
Colvin: "I can give you my assessment of the significance of this section if you like."
Préfontaine: "No. I just am looking at what information you relayed to the reader, who will eventually end up being the commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, who is tasked to make the decision of whether to transfer or not."
Colvin: “But your redactions ... have made my content somewhat incoherent because big chunks of it have been sliced out. So I am not sure what good it does to read all these little bits.”
Préfontaine: “I have heard your opinion, Mr. Colvin.”
( Ottawa Notebook, Richard Colvin's catch-22, April 14, 2010, Steven Chase)
Oh, yah, I almost forgot, on Tuesday (20 Apr.'10):
"Prefontaine told the commission that the 'documents will be given to the counsel when they are good and ready.'
Glenn Stannard, the acting chair of the commission, responded that he found Prefontaine's remarks 'close to offensive, not only to the panel but also to the public.'
Following a break, Prefontaine apologized for his remarks but still would not commit to a date as to when the documents can be expected.
(Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
)
***
Am I reading this right (Prefontaine and Colvin transcript):
- Colvin's communication despite not being critical, important or adding anything to the unredacted parts, "disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
-This non-disclosure " it’s not my call to make".
- The Commission will get the disclosures (redacted) when they are Good and ready
-Prefontaine's has access to the un-redacted version of the documents
-The Commission is required to make its decision not having seen the unredacted documents
Also
-Prefontaine cross-examined Colvin, apparently despite stating at earlier Colvin was his client.
- Didn't Harper, Mackay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's state just a few weeks ago that a full public Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal was unnecessary since there is already a review going on - the above Military Police Complaints Commission.
And,
Didn't Harper, MacKay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's explain to Canadians that it was not them who re-dacted the documents but the Department of Justice lawyers.
Well it appears that not only are the Department of Justice lawyers not basing the decisions to redact and withhold on any legal principles other than taking instructions from his client - Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's
It would also appear that Alain Prefontaine might have a personal interest in this case.
And,
Isn't it that the Canadian Government is his client and not Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's, oh yah, I forgot, Harper and the Con's own the Canadian government.
Also,
Why is it that Prefontaine has access to the un-redacted and unobstructed documents. And, Harper, Mackay and the Con's have access to the un-redacted documents but there is no one else in Canada, including all the Opposition MP's and the Head of the MPCC that are capable of protecting Canada's national security. Certainly their oaths of office, their integrity, dedication and loyalty to Canada are every bit as strong as Prefontaine's as a simple lawyer, apparently unanswerable to anyone but Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/20/afghanistan-detainees-commission.htmlTab 48
***
Transcript excerpts from the April 13, 2010, hearings on detainees at the Military Police Complaints Commission follow:
Diplomat Richard Colvin: "If we had access to the un-redacted version then there would be some crucial information, additional information which we obviously don’t have because of the redactions."
Justice Department lawyer Alain Préfontaine: "I have had access to the un-redacted document. I don’t see there anything that is missing or crucial or important."
Colvin: "Well I am afraid you are acknowledging that you are new to this issue because if you were someone who was involved in this file, involved in Afghanistan, involved in this issue, what has been redacted is extremely important and it is critical to understanding that there is nothing particularly subtle about this message. I don’t agree that it’s a subtle signal."
...
Préfontaine: "The commission will decide whether it was too subtle for the reader to pick up your meaning."
Colvin: "I think the commissioner is only given the redacted version so he may have some difficulty fully assessing the subtlety or lack thereof of this report."
Préfontaine: "I realize it’s difficult for the commission to have to contend without ability of independent verification of what you say, or for that matter, what I say."
Colvin: "I am fully prepared for the commissioner to see the un-redacted version and to form his own opinion."
Préfontaine: "So would I. But it’s not my call to make, Mr. Colvin."
Military Police Complaints Commission chairmain Glenn Stannard: "Did you say the information contained in the un-redacted [version] really isn’t critical – or did I misread that?"
Préfontaine: "No, you didn’t Mr. Stannard."
Stannard: "Just a real silly question then: any reason why we don’t have it? "
Préfontaine: "Because disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
Stannard: "Even though it’s not critical information?"
Préfontaine: "Well it might be that the information has nothing to do with what Mr. Colvin makes it out to be."
...
Colvin: “Obviously critical information has been removed by the censor. And I’m not allowed to speak to what’s behind the blacked-out portions. So I am not sure what good it is to read simply read the little bits which the censor decided is available to the Canadian public.”
Préfontaine: “Because at the end of the day, Mr. Colvin, this commission is going to be asked to pass judgment on the actions of some on the basis of this material. That’s why.”
Colvin: "I can give you my assessment of the significance of this section if you like."
Préfontaine: "No. I just am looking at what information you relayed to the reader, who will eventually end up being the commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, who is tasked to make the decision of whether to transfer or not."
Colvin: “But your redactions ... have made my content somewhat incoherent because big chunks of it have been sliced out. So I am not sure what good it does to read all these little bits.”
Préfontaine: “I have heard your opinion, Mr. Colvin.”
( Ottawa Notebook, Richard Colvin's catch-22, April 14, 2010, Steven Chase)
Oh, yah, I almost forgot, on Tuesday (20 Apr.'10):
"Prefontaine told the commission that the 'documents will be given to the counsel when they are good and ready.'
Glenn Stannard, the acting chair of the commission, responded that he found Prefontaine's remarks 'close to offensive, not only to the panel but also to the public.'
Following a break, Prefontaine apologized for his remarks but still would not commit to a date as to when the documents can be expected.
(Federal lawyer rues detainee document remark, CBC News, 21 Apr.'10
)
***
Am I reading this right (Prefontaine and Colvin transcript):
- Colvin's communication despite not being critical, important or adding anything to the unredacted parts, "disclosure would be injurious to either national defence, international relations or national security."
-This non-disclosure " it’s not my call to make".
- The Commission will get the disclosures (redacted) when they are Good and ready
-Prefontaine's has access to the un-redacted version of the documents
-The Commission is required to make its decision not having seen the unredacted documents
Also
-Prefontaine cross-examined Colvin, apparently despite stating at earlier Colvin was his client.
- Didn't Harper, Mackay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's state just a few weeks ago that a full public Inquiry into the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal was unnecessary since there is already a review going on - the above Military Police Complaints Commission.
And,
Didn't Harper, MacKay, Baird and/or some other of the Con's explain to Canadians that it was not them who re-dacted the documents but the Department of Justice lawyers.
Well it appears that not only are the Department of Justice lawyers not basing the decisions to redact and withhold on any legal principles other than taking instructions from his client - Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's
It would also appear that Alain Prefontaine might have a personal interest in this case.
And,
Isn't it that the Canadian Government is his client and not Harper, MacKay, Baird, O'Connor, and the Con's, oh yah, I forgot, Harper and the Con's own the Canadian government.
Also,
Why is it that Prefontaine has access to the un-redacted and unobstructed documents. And, Harper, Mackay and the Con's have access to the un-redacted documents but there is no one else in Canada, including all the Opposition MP's and the Head of the MPCC that are capable of protecting Canada's national security. Certainly their oaths of office, their integrity, dedication and loyalty to Canada are every bit as strong as Prefontaine's as a simple lawyer, apparently unanswerable to anyone but Harper.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
20 April, 2010
- Harper has Found His True Calling In Life???
submitted: 7:02am, PDT, 20 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Harper weighs a Congo role, Apr 20 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/797891--harper-weighs-a-congo-role#article
It seems to me that Harper would be well advised to resolve Afghanistan first, before looking at some other region to get Canada and its good men and women in uniform mixed up in.
The vary statement "Kabila's government is weak and corrupt, the war is far from over, and the army has been accused of war crimes." ought to be enough to make any prudent Canadian leader back away, far away. But given Harper involvement in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up, it is hard to imagine that his belligerent, right-wing extremist hawkish attitudes would cloud his better judgment to such a degree.
Also, if Harper's nature is so war-like, let him go over and take the position himself. Then all Canadians would be happy. We would get rid of Harper and Harper could play soldier.
While he's at it, he should take Peter MacKay with his as his 'batman', and how about taking Laurie Hawn and Gordon O'Connor as well, hay also, John Baird and Vic Toews, Stockwell Day. Wow, Canada's military 'Dream Team'. Now there's a mission I'm sure Canadians could support.
Hell! they could take over running the country for the Congolese - right-wing extremist dictatorship of a third world country, now talk about finding your true lot in life.
GW Bush went into Iran for the oil. Canada went into Afghanistan and remained there because of the Taliban threat and to help curtail global terrorism. This, and 9-11, gives meaning to the 146 Canadian men and women who have lost their lives in Afghanistan.
What possible meaning would it have for Canada to get involved with the Congo, even if it is simply lending a general to run the UN forces.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
***
Submitted: 7:46 am, PDT, 20 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Could that be the answer, Harper wants a seat on the UN Security counsel so badly he is will to drag Canada and its reputation into the quagmire that is Congo.
It is unlikely that Canada would get on the Security Counsel without the support of the US and Britain.
Could this explain Hillary Clinton's and the British Foreign Secretary's highly unusual remarks about Canada not withdrawing from Afghanistan recently while in Canada and putting pressure on the Harper. If they will do that publicly, what are they doing behind closed doors
Yah, like, as if we will ever know the truth from Harper.
Let's wait and see if Harper really does pull our troops out of Afghanistan in 2011. I think Harper himself will be up to his eye balls in Afghan detainee transfer scandal and cover-up for quite some time though.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper weighs a Congo role, Apr 20 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/797891--harper-weighs-a-congo-role#article
It seems to me that Harper would be well advised to resolve Afghanistan first, before looking at some other region to get Canada and its good men and women in uniform mixed up in.
The vary statement "Kabila's government is weak and corrupt, the war is far from over, and the army has been accused of war crimes." ought to be enough to make any prudent Canadian leader back away, far away. But given Harper involvement in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up, it is hard to imagine that his belligerent, right-wing extremist hawkish attitudes would cloud his better judgment to such a degree.
Also, if Harper's nature is so war-like, let him go over and take the position himself. Then all Canadians would be happy. We would get rid of Harper and Harper could play soldier.
While he's at it, he should take Peter MacKay with his as his 'batman', and how about taking Laurie Hawn and Gordon O'Connor as well, hay also, John Baird and Vic Toews, Stockwell Day. Wow, Canada's military 'Dream Team'. Now there's a mission I'm sure Canadians could support.
Hell! they could take over running the country for the Congolese - right-wing extremist dictatorship of a third world country, now talk about finding your true lot in life.
GW Bush went into Iran for the oil. Canada went into Afghanistan and remained there because of the Taliban threat and to help curtail global terrorism. This, and 9-11, gives meaning to the 146 Canadian men and women who have lost their lives in Afghanistan.
What possible meaning would it have for Canada to get involved with the Congo, even if it is simply lending a general to run the UN forces.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
***
Submitted: 7:46 am, PDT, 20 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Could that be the answer, Harper wants a seat on the UN Security counsel so badly he is will to drag Canada and its reputation into the quagmire that is Congo.
It is unlikely that Canada would get on the Security Counsel without the support of the US and Britain.
Could this explain Hillary Clinton's and the British Foreign Secretary's highly unusual remarks about Canada not withdrawing from Afghanistan recently while in Canada and putting pressure on the Harper. If they will do that publicly, what are they doing behind closed doors
Yah, like, as if we will ever know the truth from Harper.
Let's wait and see if Harper really does pull our troops out of Afghanistan in 2011. I think Harper himself will be up to his eye balls in Afghan detainee transfer scandal and cover-up for quite some time though.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 April, 2010
- Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for enshrining in the Charter the Free, Unobstructed Access to Information
Submitted 7:40am, PDT, 9 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Geist: Open government moving in parallel but opposite directions, April 19, 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/796682--open-government-moving-in-parallel-but-opposite-directions#comments
These private sector efforts to consolidate information already released to the public, are commendable and every bit helps to "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
However, if the information is being hidden, obstructed, obscured, distorted and spun before it is released to the pubic, does simply making a such more easily accessible really shine the light into the dark corners.
It is suggested that it is the analysis of this 'information', the extrapolation, the inferring the necessary meaning, the drilling down through the hype, that is important. This is analogous to what the US intelligence used to do during the Cold War with Soviet Union Statements. There was no doubt that it was unmitigated propaganda, but like tea leaves it could be 'read'.
For example,
Guy Giorno, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government expects full compliance with the Access Act.
He also told a Parliamentary committee piously that "access to information is the oxygen of democracy ... which makes our democracy function and which allows citizens to hold people in public office accountable."
The media has pointed out the irony (and the Harper administration's hypocrisy) of Suzanne Legault, Canada's interim information commissioner, reported the same day that Canadians' right to government information "is at risk of being totally obliterated" and that "delays are eroding Canadians' right to know."
Of course, Harper's jewel regarding the media in Democracies that: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
The real issue here, and the Press is starting to hit on this, is:
Compliance with the Act does not eliminate the systemic problems and in fact can be used to obstruct the free and open flow of information. It is compliance with the spirit and intention of the Act. It doesn't matter what the actual wording of the legislation, shrewd and motivated individuals can always find a way to avoid conforming to the spirit and intent while insisting they are in keeping within a sharp interpretation of the Legislation.
The really useful Internet development of recent years is 'Blogging'. It is useful since it affords opinions from everyone, whether good, bad, subjective, objective. To understand the importance of this, just keep in mind that probabilities ensure that out of 33 million opinions and observations, someone will hit the nail on the head.
It is suggested that these site should allow people to post comments or to point to Comments posted to various Blogs on the matters set out on their sites.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
My Post: 16 October, 2009
- Canadians need a White Knight to slay this evil of Obstructing and Obscuring Access to Information by Harper and the Con's.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The manifest purpose is to implement an agenda for which they simply do not want Canadians to be made aware of.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.
When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they?
Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).
Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.
I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.
Geist: Open government moving in parallel but opposite directions, April 19, 2010,
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/796682--open-government-moving-in-parallel-but-opposite-directions#comments
These private sector efforts to consolidate information already released to the public, are commendable and every bit helps to "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
However, if the information is being hidden, obstructed, obscured, distorted and spun before it is released to the pubic, does simply making a such more easily accessible really shine the light into the dark corners.
It is suggested that it is the analysis of this 'information', the extrapolation, the inferring the necessary meaning, the drilling down through the hype, that is important. This is analogous to what the US intelligence used to do during the Cold War with Soviet Union Statements. There was no doubt that it was unmitigated propaganda, but like tea leaves it could be 'read'.
For example,
Guy Giorno, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government expects full compliance with the Access Act.
He also told a Parliamentary committee piously that "access to information is the oxygen of democracy ... which makes our democracy function and which allows citizens to hold people in public office accountable."
The media has pointed out the irony (and the Harper administration's hypocrisy) of Suzanne Legault, Canada's interim information commissioner, reported the same day that Canadians' right to government information "is at risk of being totally obliterated" and that "delays are eroding Canadians' right to know."
Of course, Harper's jewel regarding the media in Democracies that: "shine a light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
The real issue here, and the Press is starting to hit on this, is:
Compliance with the Act does not eliminate the systemic problems and in fact can be used to obstruct the free and open flow of information. It is compliance with the spirit and intention of the Act. It doesn't matter what the actual wording of the legislation, shrewd and motivated individuals can always find a way to avoid conforming to the spirit and intent while insisting they are in keeping within a sharp interpretation of the Legislation.
The really useful Internet development of recent years is 'Blogging'. It is useful since it affords opinions from everyone, whether good, bad, subjective, objective. To understand the importance of this, just keep in mind that probabilities ensure that out of 33 million opinions and observations, someone will hit the nail on the head.
It is suggested that these site should allow people to post comments or to point to Comments posted to various Blogs on the matters set out on their sites.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
My Post: 16 October, 2009
- Canadians need a White Knight to slay this evil of Obstructing and Obscuring Access to Information by Harper and the Con's.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The manifest purpose is to implement an agenda for which they simply do not want Canadians to be made aware of.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
Many people criticize the media for not reporting fairly and accurately.
When information is obscured and perverted at the source by the government, such is what is happening now by Harper and the Con’s, this criticism is not merely blaming the messenger – since the media could make this a “cause de celebre”.
When the free flow is obstructed and curtailed it gives the government a leverage to gain influence in the media, by favouring one media outlet over another. The media is also to blame as well for this but then, they’re only human - aren’t they?
Harper and the Con’s have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times. They consider it ‘Educating the Public to Conservative Values’ (compare Harper’s statement at the beginning of the last election).
Like any propaganda machine ‘obscuration and obstruction’ of access to the truth is fundamental. Harper and the Con’s deliberate and extensive restricting and obstructing access to information is well documented. So to are his, and their, hiding and distorting the truth; responding to serious, reasonable and legitimate questions with personal attacks and slurs; and, their dark-ages attitude to Science and Scientific research.
I think education is vital but we must make sure that what people are applying it to is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that they have free, undistorted and unobstructed access to it.
18 April, 2010
- Natynczyk: The Military can't release any records - How Harperesque!
Posted: 4/18/2010 12:26:17 PM The Globe and Mail
Soldiers did not unlawfully shoot unarmed Afghan: Natynczyk, Steven Chase, Apr. 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-did-not-unlawfully-shoot-unarmed-afghan-natynczyk/article1537734/ Tab 62
With all due respect to Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk, it seems to me that the interpreter was very clear that he was relating the contents of what he had translated in questioning of those 9 or 10 detained after the said incident.
If Gen Natynczyk wants to investigate then, instead of reading the "after action review" made by the Canadian forces at the incident, which one would expect state that it was within the rule of engagement since otherwise this would have hit the news-waves a long time ago,
he should look to the transcripts of the questioning or question others who were present at the questioning to confirm or deny that that is what the Interpreter translated and the witnesses said. If it was then was it investigated. The Interpreter named names and presumably this could be done quite quickly, if one were so disposed.
Natynczyk's letter actually substantiates what the Interpreter testified to.
The only difference, is whether the Afghan killed was holding a gun or not. This is a question of fact, to which two eye witnesses attested too. From what Natynczyk wrote, there is no evidence that this was investigated any further than observing that one witness recanted at a later time. The point here is that one did not recant. Given the allegations of torture by the NDS, under what circumstances did the one recant, while he was being tortured by the NDS - I'd recant being born, under torture.
Gen. Natynczyk also points to the 9 detainees having tested positive for explosive residue, presumably as substantiating the claims set out in the "after action review" and refuting the interpreters testimony.
However, the Interpreter testified that at one time he stuck his hand in the dirt and was tested positive. This is very important and casts doubt on the residue testing generally and the basis for the 9 being detained. Also, he testified that some were old men and teenagers.
Gen. Natynczyk's letter fails to address either of these issues and given their importance and his reliance on the testing to support the official version of the incident, one can only wonder.
Posted: 4/18/2010 12:40:00 PM
Continued . . .
If I didn't have more respect for Gen. Natynczyk I might think that this is the kind of crazy logic one would expect to hear from Peter MacKay, the Harper government's legal advisor on 'admissibility of evidence'.
Gen Natynczyk's letter avoids the real issue here. "Canadian troops handing over Afghan Detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured"
The only question is whether it is a deliberate attempt to confuse and mis-lead, or he really missed the boat.
Perhaps Natynczyk is operating under tunnel vision. He might be so determined to find fault with the testimony of the interpreter and do so quickly to mitigate the damage, that he simply is unable to see any evidence that supports his testimony, after all: 'the allegation itself, is obviously not true, not from my men (and women), so the interpreter's testimony can't be credible'.
Of course, it may be strategic also.
And, of course, "The military is nevertheless refusing to release records of the matter, saying they contain 'sensitive information about tactics, techniques and procedures.'"
How Harperesque!
Although this testimony is collateral to the real issue - Canadian troops transferring Afghan detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured, it is extreme and easily doubted. So, throwing doubt on it is much easier. Once Canadians have doubt about this collateral testimony, it is a mere hop-skip-and-a-jump to serious doubt about the real, central issue.
Would a military general, trained from youth in strategy and tactics, and so successfully as to be Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, think of such a thing, employ such a thing.
You tell me.
Better, lets ask Gen. Natynczyk, himself, in an open Public Judicial Inquiry, with proper questioning by professionals equally trained and skilled, in cross-examination and investigation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Soldiers did not unlawfully shoot unarmed Afghan: Natynczyk, Steven Chase, Apr. 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-did-not-unlawfully-shoot-unarmed-afghan-natynczyk/article1537734/ Tab 62
With all due respect to Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk, it seems to me that the interpreter was very clear that he was relating the contents of what he had translated in questioning of those 9 or 10 detained after the said incident.
If Gen Natynczyk wants to investigate then, instead of reading the "after action review" made by the Canadian forces at the incident, which one would expect state that it was within the rule of engagement since otherwise this would have hit the news-waves a long time ago,
he should look to the transcripts of the questioning or question others who were present at the questioning to confirm or deny that that is what the Interpreter translated and the witnesses said. If it was then was it investigated. The Interpreter named names and presumably this could be done quite quickly, if one were so disposed.
Natynczyk's letter actually substantiates what the Interpreter testified to.
The only difference, is whether the Afghan killed was holding a gun or not. This is a question of fact, to which two eye witnesses attested too. From what Natynczyk wrote, there is no evidence that this was investigated any further than observing that one witness recanted at a later time. The point here is that one did not recant. Given the allegations of torture by the NDS, under what circumstances did the one recant, while he was being tortured by the NDS - I'd recant being born, under torture.
Gen. Natynczyk also points to the 9 detainees having tested positive for explosive residue, presumably as substantiating the claims set out in the "after action review" and refuting the interpreters testimony.
However, the Interpreter testified that at one time he stuck his hand in the dirt and was tested positive. This is very important and casts doubt on the residue testing generally and the basis for the 9 being detained. Also, he testified that some were old men and teenagers.
Gen. Natynczyk's letter fails to address either of these issues and given their importance and his reliance on the testing to support the official version of the incident, one can only wonder.
Posted: 4/18/2010 12:40:00 PM
Continued . . .
If I didn't have more respect for Gen. Natynczyk I might think that this is the kind of crazy logic one would expect to hear from Peter MacKay, the Harper government's legal advisor on 'admissibility of evidence'.
Gen Natynczyk's letter avoids the real issue here. "Canadian troops handing over Afghan Detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured"
The only question is whether it is a deliberate attempt to confuse and mis-lead, or he really missed the boat.
Perhaps Natynczyk is operating under tunnel vision. He might be so determined to find fault with the testimony of the interpreter and do so quickly to mitigate the damage, that he simply is unable to see any evidence that supports his testimony, after all: 'the allegation itself, is obviously not true, not from my men (and women), so the interpreter's testimony can't be credible'.
Of course, it may be strategic also.
And, of course, "The military is nevertheless refusing to release records of the matter, saying they contain 'sensitive information about tactics, techniques and procedures.'"
How Harperesque!
Although this testimony is collateral to the real issue - Canadian troops transferring Afghan detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured, it is extreme and easily doubted. So, throwing doubt on it is much easier. Once Canadians have doubt about this collateral testimony, it is a mere hop-skip-and-a-jump to serious doubt about the real, central issue.
Would a military general, trained from youth in strategy and tactics, and so successfully as to be Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, think of such a thing, employ such a thing.
You tell me.
Better, lets ask Gen. Natynczyk, himself, in an open Public Judicial Inquiry, with proper questioning by professionals equally trained and skilled, in cross-examination and investigation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 April, 2010
- Harper - Darth Vader, Mike Harris - Emperor Palpatine - Then Who Is Ignatieff???
Posted: 4/17/2010 11:12:18 AM The Globe and Mail
.Jeffrey Simpson
The Guergis and Afghan message: Loose lips still sink ships, 17 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-guergis-and-afghan-
message-loose-lips-still-sink-ships/article1537611/ Tab 2
Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor Laurie Hawn are not wrapping themselves in the flag.
They are hiding behind it and using our good and true men and women in uniform as shields to deflect attention to their own responsibility for this whole sordid Afghan Detainee Transfer Affair and ensuing cover-up.
This is the standard approach of Harper and the Con's - to blame others no matter what and viciously attack anyone who dares to stand up and let the truth be know, or demand that the truth be know.
There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution. However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.
Gen. Natynczyk seems now to be taking at least one of the allegation seriously (the Afghan interpreter's testimony at the Committee alleging a Canadian solder killed an unarmed Afghan).
So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't.
Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. And then, perhaps, they'd be skewered.
One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.
For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
continued . . . 4/17/2010 11:31:57 AM
Just as an illustration regarding how really futile it is for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn, to refuse an open, full Judicial Inquiry in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up and how justice has a way of catching up with political leaders who try to obstruct its running its true course while in power, in open and free Western Democracies, anyway:
Mike Harris refused an Inquiry into the Dudley affair, but had to 'face the music' after the PC's were booted out.
"On Nov. 12, 2003, just days after the Liberals swept to power in a general election, Dalton McGuinty announced his government would launch a public inquiry into the [Dudley] matter." (CBC, 31 May '07)
Mike Harris was also called as a witness in the Walkerton Inquiry: "On Friday, Ontario Premier Mike Harris became the 107th person to appear before the inquiry, and the first premier to testify before a judicial inquiry [Walkerton Inquiry] in Ontario in more than half a century. "(CBC, 29 June, 2001)
What got Harris into trouble was his right-wing extremist, my-way-or-the-highway, in-your-face, I'm right you're wrong, I'm big - you're small, bullying, mean approach to government. Sound familiar. There are more than just parallels with the Harper administration - vis.: John Baird, Jim Flaherty, Tony Clament and a raft of advisors and inner circle. Mike Harris would never get elected Federally, not as long as Ontarians have memories. However, they did the next best thing, assimilated the Harris machine in to the Harper administration. This was no accident.
Canadians have a right to know now and it is outrageous that we would have to wait until Harper gets the boot to find out the truth in this matter. But with the Harper regime, we have little choice.
However, we can hasten the process by getting rid of Harper and his kind sooner rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
.Jeffrey Simpson
The Guergis and Afghan message: Loose lips still sink ships, 17 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-guergis-and-afghan-
message-loose-lips-still-sink-ships/article1537611/ Tab 2
Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor Laurie Hawn are not wrapping themselves in the flag.
They are hiding behind it and using our good and true men and women in uniform as shields to deflect attention to their own responsibility for this whole sordid Afghan Detainee Transfer Affair and ensuing cover-up.
This is the standard approach of Harper and the Con's - to blame others no matter what and viciously attack anyone who dares to stand up and let the truth be know, or demand that the truth be know.
There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution. However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.
Gen. Natynczyk seems now to be taking at least one of the allegation seriously (the Afghan interpreter's testimony at the Committee alleging a Canadian solder killed an unarmed Afghan).
So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't.
Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. And then, perhaps, they'd be skewered.
One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.
For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
continued . . . 4/17/2010 11:31:57 AM
Just as an illustration regarding how really futile it is for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn, to refuse an open, full Judicial Inquiry in the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and ensuing cover-up and how justice has a way of catching up with political leaders who try to obstruct its running its true course while in power, in open and free Western Democracies, anyway:
Mike Harris refused an Inquiry into the Dudley affair, but had to 'face the music' after the PC's were booted out.
"On Nov. 12, 2003, just days after the Liberals swept to power in a general election, Dalton McGuinty announced his government would launch a public inquiry into the [Dudley] matter." (CBC, 31 May '07)
Mike Harris was also called as a witness in the Walkerton Inquiry: "On Friday, Ontario Premier Mike Harris became the 107th person to appear before the inquiry, and the first premier to testify before a judicial inquiry [Walkerton Inquiry] in Ontario in more than half a century. "(CBC, 29 June, 2001)
What got Harris into trouble was his right-wing extremist, my-way-or-the-highway, in-your-face, I'm right you're wrong, I'm big - you're small, bullying, mean approach to government. Sound familiar. There are more than just parallels with the Harper administration - vis.: John Baird, Jim Flaherty, Tony Clament and a raft of advisors and inner circle. Mike Harris would never get elected Federally, not as long as Ontarians have memories. However, they did the next best thing, assimilated the Harris machine in to the Harper administration. This was no accident.
Canadians have a right to know now and it is outrageous that we would have to wait until Harper gets the boot to find out the truth in this matter. But with the Harper regime, we have little choice.
However, we can hasten the process by getting rid of Harper and his kind sooner rather than later.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, here's a tip: Machiavellianism is Most Passé
Posted: 4/17/2010 9:58:19 AM
Another week of Guergis questions fails to get PM talking, Jane Taber, Friday, April 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/another-week-of-guergis-questions-fails-to-get-pm-talking/article1537415/ Tab 38
What Harper knew about the Guergis' and Jaffer's activities, if there was anything to know, and when is a very serious question.
Harper's general approach of stonewalling, secrecy, obscuration, obstruction, denial, co-ordinated viscous attack of anyone who might dare to stand up to him makes him susceptible of suspicious of cover-up.
Ignatieff is right (morally) when he says that if Harper insists in conducting the government of Canada in such a fashion then he must expect to attract suspicion. In other words, there is really only one reason a person carrying on in such a fashion, they have something to hide. So, when they are accused of hiding something it does not lie in their moth to complain.
When one looks at Harper's position right from the time Jaffer was arrested and Guergis had that meltdown in Charlottetown until now, one can wonder if there is a lot more that Harper knew right from the start.
Harper defended Guergis adamantly until all of a sudden right after the Star Investigative Report about Jaffer when to say he too a 180 degree reversal is an understatement. Also, it makes little rational sense, to me anyway, on the face of it that Guergis would resign from her Ministerial Post and Harper kick her out of the Caucus.
There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.
When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council.
Harper had considerable motive in keeping anything he might so learn secret. This is not simply for the embarrassment to his administration, which would be enough in itself. But, Guergis holds a key and strategic seat (Simcoe-Gray) in rural Ontario which she took from the Liberals in 2004 as the result of a Liberal scandal. Rural Ontario and the 905 area represent the key to a Con majority, especially since they have pretty much written-off Quebec. This is the heart of "Tim Horton Country" and they are very sensitive to scandal in their government, as everyone should be
Another interesting thing is Jaffer losing his seat in Edmonton in the '08 election (before his charges in Sep.'09) which he had held in '97. Anyone wonder why a Con of such long standing and integration in the Con Party could lose his seat in the heartland of the Cons, other than the NDP having a very good and qualified candidate. If I were part of the Liberal Brain Trust I'd be looking into that, big time.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Another week of Guergis questions fails to get PM talking, Jane Taber, Friday, April 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/another-week-of-guergis-questions-fails-to-get-pm-talking/article1537415/ Tab 38
What Harper knew about the Guergis' and Jaffer's activities, if there was anything to know, and when is a very serious question.
Harper's general approach of stonewalling, secrecy, obscuration, obstruction, denial, co-ordinated viscous attack of anyone who might dare to stand up to him makes him susceptible of suspicious of cover-up.
Ignatieff is right (morally) when he says that if Harper insists in conducting the government of Canada in such a fashion then he must expect to attract suspicion. In other words, there is really only one reason a person carrying on in such a fashion, they have something to hide. So, when they are accused of hiding something it does not lie in their moth to complain.
When one looks at Harper's position right from the time Jaffer was arrested and Guergis had that meltdown in Charlottetown until now, one can wonder if there is a lot more that Harper knew right from the start.
Harper defended Guergis adamantly until all of a sudden right after the Star Investigative Report about Jaffer when to say he too a 180 degree reversal is an understatement. Also, it makes little rational sense, to me anyway, on the face of it that Guergis would resign from her Ministerial Post and Harper kick her out of the Caucus.
There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.
When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council.
Harper had considerable motive in keeping anything he might so learn secret. This is not simply for the embarrassment to his administration, which would be enough in itself. But, Guergis holds a key and strategic seat (Simcoe-Gray) in rural Ontario which she took from the Liberals in 2004 as the result of a Liberal scandal. Rural Ontario and the 905 area represent the key to a Con majority, especially since they have pretty much written-off Quebec. This is the heart of "Tim Horton Country" and they are very sensitive to scandal in their government, as everyone should be
Another interesting thing is Jaffer losing his seat in Edmonton in the '08 election (before his charges in Sep.'09) which he had held in '97. Anyone wonder why a Con of such long standing and integration in the Con Party could lose his seat in the heartland of the Cons, other than the NDP having a very good and qualified candidate. If I were part of the Liberal Brain Trust I'd be looking into that, big time.
Lloyd MacIlquham
16 April, 2010
- Harper Call Off Your Attack Dogs
Submitted: 6:25am, 16 Apr.'10
Afghan shooting claims 'drive-by smears': MacKay, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/15/afghan-translator-allegations-detainees.html
Peter MacKay:
"insisted Thursday the Canadian Forces investigates all substantiated allegations of abuse.
. . .
'Our troops certainly deserve better than drive-by smears and unsubstantiated allegations,' the minister told the House during question period."
. . .
"When specific allegations are brought forward, we have forums, we have investigations, and we have the ability to look into them, but in yesterday's testimony there was no specific evidence offered, by his own admission," MacKay said.
And this from the guy who claims that if it is not in Hansard it didn't happen.
Peter MacKay, these are specific allegations and we do have a forum and investigations to look into them.
It's called 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry'.
Given that Mr. Malgarai's response to the MacKay attack is:
"If he wants me to prove it, give me access to the information and I'll lead them to it . . . Or issue a visa, I'll bring the witness."
Clearly 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry' is the only answer.
To suggest that these are simply rumours and nothing but hearsay is, and from MacKay i'd suggest deliberate, mis-framing the evidence.
Being a lawyer I am surprised that he seems to miss the distinction. This is not a simple rumour, like what you might hear while at your local Pub. This is what, according to Mr. Malgarai, was what he translated to Canadian officials from eye witnesses.
Keep in mind that any Court of Law, in free and open Democracies, of which Canada still is, anyway, accepts what a translator relays as what a witness says in another language as evidence. There is no accusation of hearsay.
The key is that the interpreter is suitably qualified, and given the letter of reference and the length of time the Canadian authorities employed Mr. Malgarai I infer this is a given. The second, is that the interpreter is oath bound to translate accurately and completely to the best of his/her ability. I would be very surprised if this were not part of Mr. Malgarai duties and responsibilities as interpreter for the Canadian authorities - it would be bizarre to suggest it would have been otherwise. It is also bizarre to think that it was in fact anything else.
Also, Gen. Natynczyk seems to take this allegation seriously. So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't. Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. and then they'd be scr[XX]d, perhaps.
One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.
For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Afghan shooting claims 'drive-by smears': MacKay, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/15/afghan-translator-allegations-detainees.html
Peter MacKay:
"insisted Thursday the Canadian Forces investigates all substantiated allegations of abuse.
. . .
'Our troops certainly deserve better than drive-by smears and unsubstantiated allegations,' the minister told the House during question period."
. . .
"When specific allegations are brought forward, we have forums, we have investigations, and we have the ability to look into them, but in yesterday's testimony there was no specific evidence offered, by his own admission," MacKay said.
And this from the guy who claims that if it is not in Hansard it didn't happen.
Peter MacKay, these are specific allegations and we do have a forum and investigations to look into them.
It's called 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry'.
Given that Mr. Malgarai's response to the MacKay attack is:
"If he wants me to prove it, give me access to the information and I'll lead them to it . . . Or issue a visa, I'll bring the witness."
Clearly 'a full and open Judicial Inquiry' is the only answer.
To suggest that these are simply rumours and nothing but hearsay is, and from MacKay i'd suggest deliberate, mis-framing the evidence.
Being a lawyer I am surprised that he seems to miss the distinction. This is not a simple rumour, like what you might hear while at your local Pub. This is what, according to Mr. Malgarai, was what he translated to Canadian officials from eye witnesses.
Keep in mind that any Court of Law, in free and open Democracies, of which Canada still is, anyway, accepts what a translator relays as what a witness says in another language as evidence. There is no accusation of hearsay.
The key is that the interpreter is suitably qualified, and given the letter of reference and the length of time the Canadian authorities employed Mr. Malgarai I infer this is a given. The second, is that the interpreter is oath bound to translate accurately and completely to the best of his/her ability. I would be very surprised if this were not part of Mr. Malgarai duties and responsibilities as interpreter for the Canadian authorities - it would be bizarre to suggest it would have been otherwise. It is also bizarre to think that it was in fact anything else.
Also, Gen. Natynczyk seems to take this allegation seriously. So, why is it Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper don't. Well the easy answer is that if they did take it seriously instead of simply responding with viscous personal attacks, they would have to call a full, open Judicial Inquiry, now wouldn't they. and then they'd be scr[XX]d, perhaps.
One thing Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Laurie Hawn might keep in mind is that it is usually after the leaders of a country have discontinued their rule, for whatever reason, that they are brought before the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague. Harper, MacKay and the Con's can hold out while they are in power, but what about after they leave.
For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
15 April, 2010
- 'Heart of Darkness', Stephen Harper Produced and Director
Posted: 4/15/2010 10:08:47 AM The Globe and Mail
Military vows to probe ‘grave’ detainee accusations, Steven Chase, The Globe and Mail, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-vows-to-probe-grave-detainee-accusations/article1534345/ Tab 102
“I can assure all Canadians that we take all allegations seriously and will investigate new allegations appropriately,” Gen. Natynczyk said.
I can assure Gen Natynczyk that Canadians take these allegations seriously and demand that they are appropriately investigated.
The difference is that the appropriate method of investigation is an full, open Public Inquiry and not some internal thing behind an iron curtain conducted by people or organizations who may have a strong self-interest.
Once again it appears that the Harper administration is taking the position that this is not 'proof' of abuse of Afghan Detainees transferred by Canadians. If I recall Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the Defence Minister Peter MacKay, suggested yesterday that the incident related by the interpreter of a Canadian solder killing an unarmed Afghan was not credible since he had only heard about it. However, it is not a question of just having heard about it, he learned of it through his duties as a translator when they were interrogating the Afghan 'rounded-up' after the incident. Not only does this make it more than simply a rumour but it also means that Canadian authorities must have 'heard the rumour as well', after all he was translating it to some Canadian.
If it is such a serious allegation, and it is, then why wasn't it investigated at the time. Also, why are these other people not appearing at the Parliamentary Committee to either confirm or refute this testimony.
If Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Leaurie Hawn, Gordon O'Connon or any other Con are really so concerned about the reliability of all these witnesses, who, by the way, are building a very strong, consistent case, then surely they would be screaming for a full, open Public Inquiry, wouldn't they.
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.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Excerpt Submitted: 7:26am, PDT, 15 Apr.'10 CBCV News
Afghan translator alleges shooting coverup, Man acknowledges there is 'no direct evidence' incident occurred, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10 Tab 99
Military vows to probe ‘grave’ detainee accusations, Steven Chase, The Globe and Mail, 15 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-vows-to-probe-grave-detainee-accusations/article1534345/ Tab 102
“I can assure all Canadians that we take all allegations seriously and will investigate new allegations appropriately,” Gen. Natynczyk said.
I can assure Gen Natynczyk that Canadians take these allegations seriously and demand that they are appropriately investigated.
The difference is that the appropriate method of investigation is an full, open Public Inquiry and not some internal thing behind an iron curtain conducted by people or organizations who may have a strong self-interest.
Once again it appears that the Harper administration is taking the position that this is not 'proof' of abuse of Afghan Detainees transferred by Canadians. If I recall Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the Defence Minister Peter MacKay, suggested yesterday that the incident related by the interpreter of a Canadian solder killing an unarmed Afghan was not credible since he had only heard about it. However, it is not a question of just having heard about it, he learned of it through his duties as a translator when they were interrogating the Afghan 'rounded-up' after the incident. Not only does this make it more than simply a rumour but it also means that Canadian authorities must have 'heard the rumour as well', after all he was translating it to some Canadian.
If it is such a serious allegation, and it is, then why wasn't it investigated at the time. Also, why are these other people not appearing at the Parliamentary Committee to either confirm or refute this testimony.
If Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Leaurie Hawn, Gordon O'Connon or any other Con are really so concerned about the reliability of all these witnesses, who, by the way, are building a very strong, consistent case, then surely they would be screaming for a full, open Public Inquiry, wouldn't they.
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.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Excerpt Submitted: 7:26am, PDT, 15 Apr.'10 CBCV News
Afghan translator alleges shooting coverup, Man acknowledges there is 'no direct evidence' incident occurred, CBC News, 15 Apr.'10 Tab 99
14 April, 2010
- Harper: 'I'm Transparent, Honest - You'll Just have to Trust Me On That"
No Posts allowed: CTV News
Feds get a 'D' grade on handling information requests, The Canadian Press, 13 Apr.'10
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100413/info_requests_100413/20100413?hub=QPeriod
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness. The manifest purpose is to implement an agenda for which they simply do not want Canadians to be made aware of.
It appears that there are a number of problems.
- Understaffed being one of them.
Understaffing can be a well thought out and well executed, deliberate 'tool' applied to slow down and obstruct process.
This type of thing is happened in other areas as well, for example the Refugee Board. It is well known that Harper simply did not appoint new Board members for the first 2 - 3 years of his administration, apparently there wasn't anyone qualified for the job. Huge backlogs built up until now Harper and the Con's are running around proclaiming how Canada Refugee system is broken and professing the solution.
The real problem is that Canada's Refugee System is simply too into Human Rights and is reflective of a tolerant compassionate society, certainly not in line with what the die-hard core of right wing extremist supporters of Harper and the Con's envision their Canada.
Immigration at the Visa Posts is another example where 'understaffing' can cause delays of up to 5 years or more and reduce the flow of immigrants to a trickle in any particular area of the world in which the government wants reduced number immigrating to Canada. Anyone involved with Immigration knows what I am talking about and knows what regions of the World to which this applies.
Don't get me wrong, it may be that the Refugee Board needs improving and it may be that Canada ought to reduce the flow of Immigrants.
It is the underhanded, sneaky, secretive, manipulative, obscurist and obstructionist, ideologueic manner in which Harper and the Con's are going about it - suppressing Access to Information and otherwise refusing to release information being one of their primary tools.
The reason is that they are hiding their right wing extremist, no-tolerant, anti human and civil rights objectives from all but that 33% die-hard core of extreme right wing supporters that demand it.
If you think this is not a serious matter with the Harper government . . .
what's this ... coming up on my Google search of "Stockwell Day " +"Doris Day" ...
at:
http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html
"The Prank That Destroyed Stockwell Day, By Charles Moffat"
"During the 2000 election campaign Day made the following comments and voiced the following beliefs:
...
- Day espoused his belief that evolution doesn't exist and that people do really come from Adam and Eve.
- Day believed that an "Asian Invasion" was taking place at Canadian universities and that we shouldn't allow asians to study in Canada.
- He made a variety of other quotes displaying his anti-immigration beliefs, anti-native rights, anti-women's rights and anti-Quebec."
(shocking . . . I wonder if it's true, did Day really say those things? In that case, how could Harper make him one of his inner circle Ministers? Certainly Harper would know about it, wouldn't he?)
When Stockwell Day says "We want to improve our process" champions of civil rights ought not hold their breath.
Since when was Stockwell Day a champion of civil rights, transparency, openness. And if you think "We want to improve our process" means more funding, faster processing and greater degree of disclosure, you better think again. The Harper government modus operandi is secrecy, hiding, non-disclosure, obscuration, obstruction, that's "their process".
- No legislative clout for delays and interference by Harper and his Ministers is another.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
- Also, the existing Legislation has too many 'loop-holes':
Everyone can understand that some information should be withheld. However, this must be minimalized, justified and particularized on an incident-by-incident basis.
The legislation now is very broad and general about what may be withheld.
But, even worse is that no reason need be given for any particular instance, but simply a copy of the general provisions of the Act that allows withholding information attached to the cover letter for the disclosure. It can be impossible to determine if there was even something withheld and if so what the nature of it is and the grounds for being withheld (or the actual section of the Act that is being relied upon). This is not even 'redacting'.
When you have part of a page or a whole page blacked out (or trickier to detect, blanked out), it at least tells you that something has been withheld, and perhaps the context. However, if a whole page of number of pages is withheld, how do you know (sometimes they number the pages, but a lot of times they don't). This can totally undermine the Access request and in a fashion that is insidious. It can also make it virtually impossible to bring a meaningful complaint.
As the article points out "The Conservative government broke 2006 election promises to bring in wide-ranging reforms to the law."
Guy Giorno, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government expects full compliance with the Access Act.
However, full compliance with the Act does not eliminate the systemic problems as discussed above.
Further, what Canadian ought to demand from their Prime Minister and government of the day is compliance with the spirit and intention of the Act. It doesn't matter what the actual wording of the legislation, shrewd and motivated individuals can always find a way to avoid conforming to the spirit and intent while insisting they are in keeping within a sharp interpretation of the Legislation.
For example, Giorno goes on to say that ministers' offices get advance notice -- an average of four days -- when sensitive requests are about to be released. Such briefings are considered acceptable as long as they don't delay disclosure.
We have all heard how this is applied by the Harper administration - for example, then-minister of Public Works, Christian Paradis's Office has been accused of meddling and at least delaying release of the access request.
Canada's information watchdog, Interim information commissioner Suzanne Legault released her special report to parliament urging the government to take immediate steps to curb persistent foot-dragging.
She then went on to comment, in very diplomatic fashion:
"Do we have a government right now that is instilling a culture of transparency, that is taking a leadership role like the American president is taking in matters of promoting transparency, which is broader than Access to Information?" she asked. "I haven't seen evidence of that yet."
(keep in mind this is Harper and the Con's she is talking about, you know the guys who ruthlessly attack, and on a very personal level, anyone who dares to stand up and oppose them - so I invite you to read between the lines).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Excerpt Posted: 4/14/2010 2:13:01 PM to The Globe and Mail
John Ibbitson discusses Ottawa's trouble with disclosure, John Ibbitson, 14 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/discussions/john-ibbitson-discusses-ottawas-trouble-with-disclosure/article1533093/
Feds get a 'D' grade on handling information requests, The Canadian Press, 13 Apr.'10
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100413/info_requests_100413/20100413?hub=QPeriod
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness. The manifest purpose is to implement an agenda for which they simply do not want Canadians to be made aware of.
It appears that there are a number of problems.
- Understaffed being one of them.
Understaffing can be a well thought out and well executed, deliberate 'tool' applied to slow down and obstruct process.
This type of thing is happened in other areas as well, for example the Refugee Board. It is well known that Harper simply did not appoint new Board members for the first 2 - 3 years of his administration, apparently there wasn't anyone qualified for the job. Huge backlogs built up until now Harper and the Con's are running around proclaiming how Canada Refugee system is broken and professing the solution.
The real problem is that Canada's Refugee System is simply too into Human Rights and is reflective of a tolerant compassionate society, certainly not in line with what the die-hard core of right wing extremist supporters of Harper and the Con's envision their Canada.
Immigration at the Visa Posts is another example where 'understaffing' can cause delays of up to 5 years or more and reduce the flow of immigrants to a trickle in any particular area of the world in which the government wants reduced number immigrating to Canada. Anyone involved with Immigration knows what I am talking about and knows what regions of the World to which this applies.
Don't get me wrong, it may be that the Refugee Board needs improving and it may be that Canada ought to reduce the flow of Immigrants.
It is the underhanded, sneaky, secretive, manipulative, obscurist and obstructionist, ideologueic manner in which Harper and the Con's are going about it - suppressing Access to Information and otherwise refusing to release information being one of their primary tools.
The reason is that they are hiding their right wing extremist, no-tolerant, anti human and civil rights objectives from all but that 33% die-hard core of extreme right wing supporters that demand it.
If you think this is not a serious matter with the Harper government . . .
what's this ... coming up on my Google search of "Stockwell Day " +"Doris Day" ...
at:
http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/canada/The_Prank_That_Destroyed_StockwellDay.html
"The Prank That Destroyed Stockwell Day, By Charles Moffat"
"During the 2000 election campaign Day made the following comments and voiced the following beliefs:
...
- Day espoused his belief that evolution doesn't exist and that people do really come from Adam and Eve.
- Day believed that an "Asian Invasion" was taking place at Canadian universities and that we shouldn't allow asians to study in Canada.
- He made a variety of other quotes displaying his anti-immigration beliefs, anti-native rights, anti-women's rights and anti-Quebec."
(shocking . . . I wonder if it's true, did Day really say those things? In that case, how could Harper make him one of his inner circle Ministers? Certainly Harper would know about it, wouldn't he?)
When Stockwell Day says "We want to improve our process" champions of civil rights ought not hold their breath.
Since when was Stockwell Day a champion of civil rights, transparency, openness. And if you think "We want to improve our process" means more funding, faster processing and greater degree of disclosure, you better think again. The Harper government modus operandi is secrecy, hiding, non-disclosure, obscuration, obstruction, that's "their process".
- No legislative clout for delays and interference by Harper and his Ministers is another.
Liberal and comprehensive rights to access information, available to all, unobstructed and vigilantly exercised, is a cornerstone of modern, open and free, democracy, protecting all from a closed, secretive government intent on using the powers entrusted to them for their self interest and interests contrary to the will of the people.
The open, transparent, free and unobstructed flow of information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Its obstruction and obscuration, and in the extreme, by Harper and the Con’s shows us the dire need for this.
"How can you cast your vote intelligently if you don't know what's going on?"
(Robert Marleau, information commissioner).
Access to information affords the stuff whereby the individual may forge both sword and shield to uphold human rights, without which no amount legislation can guaranty these rights and so, should therefore stand on the same footing.
- Also, the existing Legislation has too many 'loop-holes':
Everyone can understand that some information should be withheld. However, this must be minimalized, justified and particularized on an incident-by-incident basis.
The legislation now is very broad and general about what may be withheld.
But, even worse is that no reason need be given for any particular instance, but simply a copy of the general provisions of the Act that allows withholding information attached to the cover letter for the disclosure. It can be impossible to determine if there was even something withheld and if so what the nature of it is and the grounds for being withheld (or the actual section of the Act that is being relied upon). This is not even 'redacting'.
When you have part of a page or a whole page blacked out (or trickier to detect, blanked out), it at least tells you that something has been withheld, and perhaps the context. However, if a whole page of number of pages is withheld, how do you know (sometimes they number the pages, but a lot of times they don't). This can totally undermine the Access request and in a fashion that is insidious. It can also make it virtually impossible to bring a meaningful complaint.
As the article points out "The Conservative government broke 2006 election promises to bring in wide-ranging reforms to the law."
Guy Giorno, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government expects full compliance with the Access Act.
However, full compliance with the Act does not eliminate the systemic problems as discussed above.
Further, what Canadian ought to demand from their Prime Minister and government of the day is compliance with the spirit and intention of the Act. It doesn't matter what the actual wording of the legislation, shrewd and motivated individuals can always find a way to avoid conforming to the spirit and intent while insisting they are in keeping within a sharp interpretation of the Legislation.
For example, Giorno goes on to say that ministers' offices get advance notice -- an average of four days -- when sensitive requests are about to be released. Such briefings are considered acceptable as long as they don't delay disclosure.
We have all heard how this is applied by the Harper administration - for example, then-minister of Public Works, Christian Paradis's Office has been accused of meddling and at least delaying release of the access request.
Canada's information watchdog, Interim information commissioner Suzanne Legault released her special report to parliament urging the government to take immediate steps to curb persistent foot-dragging.
She then went on to comment, in very diplomatic fashion:
"Do we have a government right now that is instilling a culture of transparency, that is taking a leadership role like the American president is taking in matters of promoting transparency, which is broader than Access to Information?" she asked. "I haven't seen evidence of that yet."
(keep in mind this is Harper and the Con's she is talking about, you know the guys who ruthlessly attack, and on a very personal level, anyone who dares to stand up and oppose them - so I invite you to read between the lines).
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Excerpt Posted: 4/14/2010 2:13:01 PM to The Globe and Mail
John Ibbitson discusses Ottawa's trouble with disclosure, John Ibbitson, 14 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/discussions/john-ibbitson-discusses-ottawas-trouble-with-disclosure/article1533093/
13 April, 2010
- Harper Open - Au contraire mon frere
See below: "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"
Posted: 4/13/2010 10:05:10 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories mum on Guergis allegations, Gloria Galloway, April 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-mum-on-guergis-allegations/article1531894/Tab 50
Cascadian Ten wrote: 4/13/2010 10:20:36 AM
"Actually, requesting that the RCMP investigate one of your own in the face of corruption is the definition of holding yourself and your party answerable to the Canadian people. Frankly, it's showing greater accountability to Canadians then the Liberal party has shown in decades."
***
My Reply, posted: 4/13/2010 11:05:36 AM, Tab 51:
Au contraire mon frere, . . .
and don't call me 'Frankly'.
Paul Martin stood tall, took responsibility and call for a full and open judicial inquiry regarding the sponsorship scandal. This was despite the obvious political backlash against the Liberal party and himself as Leader. Many people suggested that he might call in the RCMP to investigate, thereby putting a lid of secrecy over the whole affair and by the time the RCMP had finished investigating it would be 'ancient history'. Martin took the high ground and did what was best for Canada as a nation and not himself and his party.
Harper with the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up has been doing everything he can to prevent it being brought out into the open. And for good reason, he's screXXX'd if he does.
Now Harper is calling in the RCMP to investigate the Jaffer-Guergis scandal and refusing to disclose anything about why. Again Harper is employing the utmost secrecy. And again, if he were to discuss the truth, you can bet'ya someone high up in the Con's echelons of power will be screXXX'd. Otherwise, what's the point of his secrecy.
One of the most noticeable traits of the Harper administration is that neither he, nor any of the other Con's stands up and takes responsibility for anything. No matter what, it is always someone else's fault, even to the extent of trying to pin the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal on our good men and women in uniform - shame on you Stephen Harper.
Even Harper's die-hard supporters operate in secrecy - now don't they Mr. 'Ten
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Posted: 4/13/2010 10:05:10 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories mum on Guergis allegations, Gloria Galloway, April 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-mum-on-guergis-allegations/article1531894/Tab 50
Cascadian Ten wrote: 4/13/2010 10:20:36 AM
"Actually, requesting that the RCMP investigate one of your own in the face of corruption is the definition of holding yourself and your party answerable to the Canadian people. Frankly, it's showing greater accountability to Canadians then the Liberal party has shown in decades."
***
My Reply, posted: 4/13/2010 11:05:36 AM, Tab 51:
Au contraire mon frere, . . .
and don't call me 'Frankly'.
Paul Martin stood tall, took responsibility and call for a full and open judicial inquiry regarding the sponsorship scandal. This was despite the obvious political backlash against the Liberal party and himself as Leader. Many people suggested that he might call in the RCMP to investigate, thereby putting a lid of secrecy over the whole affair and by the time the RCMP had finished investigating it would be 'ancient history'. Martin took the high ground and did what was best for Canada as a nation and not himself and his party.
Harper with the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up has been doing everything he can to prevent it being brought out into the open. And for good reason, he's screXXX'd if he does.
Now Harper is calling in the RCMP to investigate the Jaffer-Guergis scandal and refusing to disclose anything about why. Again Harper is employing the utmost secrecy. And again, if he were to discuss the truth, you can bet'ya someone high up in the Con's echelons of power will be screXXX'd. Otherwise, what's the point of his secrecy.
One of the most noticeable traits of the Harper administration is that neither he, nor any of the other Con's stands up and takes responsibility for anything. No matter what, it is always someone else's fault, even to the extent of trying to pin the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal on our good men and women in uniform - shame on you Stephen Harper.
Even Harper's die-hard supporters operate in secrecy - now don't they Mr. 'Ten
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper's Serious Lapse In Judgment, Again
No Posts allowed: The Toronto Sun
Taxpayers foot bill for high-flying Guergis, Elizabeth Thompson, 12 Apr.'10,
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/12/13560231-qmi.html
"According to proactive disclosure reports, Guergis charged taxpayers for $273,158 for the period from May 2006 to mid-February 2010. In 2008, as Canada was heading into a recession, Guergis spent $113,429 with trips to destinations that included Beijing, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Belize, Guatemala, Peru, Columbia, El Salvador, New Delhi, Miami, Jamaica, Barbados and Mexico City. "
Am I reading this right??? Is this possible???
No wonder Guergis blew up at the Charlottetown Airport.
She has spent so much time at airports, the laws of probabilities dictated it.
Also, it highlights her considering Charlottetown as "this shithole". I mean, after all, she is a jet setter accustomed to much more exotic and cosmopolitan places. What arrogance and from someone leading this great and proud nation of ours.
How many other of Harper's Ministers really think this way but are able, so far, to keep it under raps. How could Harper choose someone of such questionable character to be a Minister. We saw a similar serious lapse in judgment with Maxime Bernier.
Clearly Harper chooses his cabinet not because of ability, character, maturity, but solely for political reasons.
Jean Chrétien didn't do that. Chrétien's claim to fame and secret behind his success for so long was exactly being able to pick the best qualified person for each Ministerial Post and Canada reaped the benefits.
Chrétien's objective was to do what was right (morally) for Canada.
Stephen Harper objective is to do what is extreme right (ideologically) to Canada and Canadians be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Taxpayers foot bill for high-flying Guergis, Elizabeth Thompson, 12 Apr.'10,
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/12/13560231-qmi.html
"According to proactive disclosure reports, Guergis charged taxpayers for $273,158 for the period from May 2006 to mid-February 2010. In 2008, as Canada was heading into a recession, Guergis spent $113,429 with trips to destinations that included Beijing, Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Belize, Guatemala, Peru, Columbia, El Salvador, New Delhi, Miami, Jamaica, Barbados and Mexico City. "
Am I reading this right??? Is this possible???
No wonder Guergis blew up at the Charlottetown Airport.
She has spent so much time at airports, the laws of probabilities dictated it.
Also, it highlights her considering Charlottetown as "this shithole". I mean, after all, she is a jet setter accustomed to much more exotic and cosmopolitan places. What arrogance and from someone leading this great and proud nation of ours.
How many other of Harper's Ministers really think this way but are able, so far, to keep it under raps. How could Harper choose someone of such questionable character to be a Minister. We saw a similar serious lapse in judgment with Maxime Bernier.
Clearly Harper chooses his cabinet not because of ability, character, maturity, but solely for political reasons.
Jean Chrétien didn't do that. Chrétien's claim to fame and secret behind his success for so long was exactly being able to pick the best qualified person for each Ministerial Post and Canada reaped the benefits.
Chrétien's objective was to do what was right (morally) for Canada.
Stephen Harper objective is to do what is extreme right (ideologically) to Canada and Canadians be damned.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"
Posted: 4/13/2010 10:05:10 AM The Globe and Mail
Tories mum on Guergis allegations, Gloria Galloway, April 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-mum-on-guergis-allegations/article1531894/Tab 50
Stephen Harper and the Con's run the Canadian government as if it were theirs, as if they were not answerable to Parliament, as if they were not answerable to the people of Canada.
When you think of it, it is outrageous that Harper would keep these 'third party' allegations secret. Even if Guergis is cleared by the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner, still it was serious enough for him to remove her from the Con Caucus and call in these investigative bodies.
In fact, if anyone is taking notice of the symbolism, clearly Harper has gone to extremes (perhaps expected from an extremist) to disassociate Guergis to the extent of having her "banished to a corner of the House that is furthest from Mr. Harper". I can not recall any Prime Minister going to such lengths. This is not normal.
If Harper called the RCMP simply to have an excuse to not disclose what was going on, then that could amount to a serious abuse of power by Harper. If these allegations are serious then, again, there could have been a serious abuse of power and given Harper reaction it may very well go right to the heart of his administration, the PMO office.
Or, given John Baird's track record, I can place little confidence in Baird's denial of having anything to do with it. Anita Neville has made the very astute connection between Baird and Jaffer, in two ways. Jaffer was allegedly touting in the infamous 10 Sep.'10 meeting his ability to get Green Fund loans, which apparently Baird has Ministership over and they met on 3 September. Circumstantial, yes. Compelling, again, yes.
After all, how likely would it be for Jaffer to tell these men of questionable repute he could produce without being quite sure he could.
Baird is a vital part of Harper regime, if he falls it would have serious repercussions, especially in Ontario. This could explain Harper's extreme measures.
When are Canadians going to stand up and say "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories mum on Guergis allegations, Gloria Galloway, April 12, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-mum-on-guergis-allegations/article1531894/Tab 50
Stephen Harper and the Con's run the Canadian government as if it were theirs, as if they were not answerable to Parliament, as if they were not answerable to the people of Canada.
When you think of it, it is outrageous that Harper would keep these 'third party' allegations secret. Even if Guergis is cleared by the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner, still it was serious enough for him to remove her from the Con Caucus and call in these investigative bodies.
In fact, if anyone is taking notice of the symbolism, clearly Harper has gone to extremes (perhaps expected from an extremist) to disassociate Guergis to the extent of having her "banished to a corner of the House that is furthest from Mr. Harper". I can not recall any Prime Minister going to such lengths. This is not normal.
If Harper called the RCMP simply to have an excuse to not disclose what was going on, then that could amount to a serious abuse of power by Harper. If these allegations are serious then, again, there could have been a serious abuse of power and given Harper reaction it may very well go right to the heart of his administration, the PMO office.
Or, given John Baird's track record, I can place little confidence in Baird's denial of having anything to do with it. Anita Neville has made the very astute connection between Baird and Jaffer, in two ways. Jaffer was allegedly touting in the infamous 10 Sep.'10 meeting his ability to get Green Fund loans, which apparently Baird has Ministership over and they met on 3 September. Circumstantial, yes. Compelling, again, yes.
After all, how likely would it be for Jaffer to tell these men of questionable repute he could produce without being quite sure he could.
Baird is a vital part of Harper regime, if he falls it would have serious repercussions, especially in Ontario. This could explain Harper's extreme measures.
When are Canadians going to stand up and say "Out, damn'd Harper! out, I say!"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 April, 2010
- Harper, 'Mover and Shaker'? How about 'Hodger and Podger'
Posted: 4/12/2010 3:10:26 PM The Globe and Mail
Douglas Bell critiques the movers and shakers in Canadian politics, Globe and Mail, 12 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/douglas-bell/coalition-redux/article1531226/tab 3
Stephen Harper and his Con's have a core of die-hard supporter - approx 33% in the polls - centred in Alberta, that will vote Con pretty much no matter what, they are also the source of finances and manpower in elections. To get a majority they need merely attract one or more well identified groups to vote Con. These do not have to be core-supporters, but merely vote for them. Hence the very narrowly defined, high profile, emotionally based policies like 'tough on crime'. If one were to look at the Harper 'tough on Crime policy' rationally and logically, which people have, it simply doesn't work. It didn't work for G.W. Bush's America and it won't work for Canada, the reason it's simply is not the right (morally right that is) way to go about it.
If one looks at the 'though on Crime' legislation Harper has introduced it is a miss-mash of one-off's of a very narrow, to say the least, applicability, so as to represent a superficial revision, but are high profile, very emotionally charged and easy to expound in a short 'sound-bit' - something like reducing the GST- pretty much useless as to its effect, and in fact harmful to Canada's finances, but very 'sound-bitable'.
As a result with Harper and the Con's we have a hodge-podge of policies, right wing and to the extreme that are designed to satisfy small groups of people on the far right wing of Canadian society. There is no underlying principle that unifies this country, in fact it tends to polarize and cause factional differences that fracture Canada's social fabric. This is in line with Harper's long-time goal of tearing Canada, as a nation, asunder.
So the Liberals with a set of unifying underlying principles designed with the benefit of all Canadians at it's heart, is the way to go. Ideology, especially if it is right wing or left wing leads to the type of government we see with Harper and the Con's, perhaps some other small sector(s) benefiting.
Jack Layton's dream is to supplant the Liberals and so is not likely to support them.
That leaves three possibilities if the 2/3 rds of Canadians opposed to Harper and the Con's are going to join forces and defeat him. Either Ignatieff and the Liberals adopt centre to left policies (similar to Pearson) and attract the vote, the Liberals and the NDP for a formal co-alition or Layton steps down and a more pragmatic person steps into the position of NDP leader.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Douglas Bell critiques the movers and shakers in Canadian politics, Globe and Mail, 12 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/douglas-bell/coalition-redux/article1531226/tab 3
Stephen Harper and his Con's have a core of die-hard supporter - approx 33% in the polls - centred in Alberta, that will vote Con pretty much no matter what, they are also the source of finances and manpower in elections. To get a majority they need merely attract one or more well identified groups to vote Con. These do not have to be core-supporters, but merely vote for them. Hence the very narrowly defined, high profile, emotionally based policies like 'tough on crime'. If one were to look at the Harper 'tough on Crime policy' rationally and logically, which people have, it simply doesn't work. It didn't work for G.W. Bush's America and it won't work for Canada, the reason it's simply is not the right (morally right that is) way to go about it.
If one looks at the 'though on Crime' legislation Harper has introduced it is a miss-mash of one-off's of a very narrow, to say the least, applicability, so as to represent a superficial revision, but are high profile, very emotionally charged and easy to expound in a short 'sound-bit' - something like reducing the GST- pretty much useless as to its effect, and in fact harmful to Canada's finances, but very 'sound-bitable'.
As a result with Harper and the Con's we have a hodge-podge of policies, right wing and to the extreme that are designed to satisfy small groups of people on the far right wing of Canadian society. There is no underlying principle that unifies this country, in fact it tends to polarize and cause factional differences that fracture Canada's social fabric. This is in line with Harper's long-time goal of tearing Canada, as a nation, asunder.
So the Liberals with a set of unifying underlying principles designed with the benefit of all Canadians at it's heart, is the way to go. Ideology, especially if it is right wing or left wing leads to the type of government we see with Harper and the Con's, perhaps some other small sector(s) benefiting.
Jack Layton's dream is to supplant the Liberals and so is not likely to support them.
That leaves three possibilities if the 2/3 rds of Canadians opposed to Harper and the Con's are going to join forces and defeat him. Either Ignatieff and the Liberals adopt centre to left policies (similar to Pearson) and attract the vote, the Liberals and the NDP for a formal co-alition or Layton steps down and a more pragmatic person steps into the position of NDP leader.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 April, 2010
- Harper is Rare Indeed, Thank God !
Posted: 4/11/2010 1:07:33 PM The Globe and Mail
Criminal allegations hang over Ottawa as Guergis turfed from Tory caucus, Daniel Leblanc and Bill Curry
Apr. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/criminal-allegations-
hang-over-ottawa-as-guergis-turfed-from-tory-caucus/article1529910/ Tab 67
The Stephen Harper and the Con's spent countless millions (countless only because of the secrecy surrounding everything Harper does) tax payers money, in a huge publicity campaign that tried to assocaite the Stimulus spending with the Con Party. They even used those prop cheques. And, there were insinuations that those that supported the Con's might benefit more than those that didn't, not the least of which were reports by Kennedy of the Liberals that the Stimulus Finds were being 'spread' around with a significant and distinct bias to Con ridings.
It is easy to see that this might create an atmosphere in which someone, who has connections to the Con Party, especially strong ones to the highest echelons of power, intimate that they had an open door to the PM's office and it be believed by the person on the other end.
It is easy to see that the actions of Harper and the Con's make it easier to believe, especially by someone who deals in such fashion and is eager to believe such things.
This is not to suggest that they actually have any such connections and only time will tell on that score - Harper's extreme and swift actions against Guergis raise serious concerns.
"And it is a rare occasion in which a Prime Minister refuses to reveal why a cabinet member is leaving."
Traditionally this statement has been true. However, Harper and his Con's have employed a very deliberate and concerted effort right from the start to hide everything that goes on. Everyone knows that with Harper there has bee a total lack of transparency.
Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.
Also, why is that no matter what happens Harper gives some excuse for not letting the people of Canada know what is really going on. Despite that all Canadians, to a man, women and child, are surely outraged, totally lacking in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.
As I said last time:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Criminal allegations hang over Ottawa as Guergis turfed from Tory caucus, Daniel Leblanc and Bill Curry
Apr. 10, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/criminal-allegations-
hang-over-ottawa-as-guergis-turfed-from-tory-caucus/article1529910/ Tab 67
The Stephen Harper and the Con's spent countless millions (countless only because of the secrecy surrounding everything Harper does) tax payers money, in a huge publicity campaign that tried to assocaite the Stimulus spending with the Con Party. They even used those prop cheques. And, there were insinuations that those that supported the Con's might benefit more than those that didn't, not the least of which were reports by Kennedy of the Liberals that the Stimulus Finds were being 'spread' around with a significant and distinct bias to Con ridings.
It is easy to see that this might create an atmosphere in which someone, who has connections to the Con Party, especially strong ones to the highest echelons of power, intimate that they had an open door to the PM's office and it be believed by the person on the other end.
It is easy to see that the actions of Harper and the Con's make it easier to believe, especially by someone who deals in such fashion and is eager to believe such things.
This is not to suggest that they actually have any such connections and only time will tell on that score - Harper's extreme and swift actions against Guergis raise serious concerns.
"And it is a rare occasion in which a Prime Minister refuses to reveal why a cabinet member is leaving."
Traditionally this statement has been true. However, Harper and his Con's have employed a very deliberate and concerted effort right from the start to hide everything that goes on. Everyone knows that with Harper there has bee a total lack of transparency.
Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.
Also, why is that no matter what happens Harper gives some excuse for not letting the people of Canada know what is really going on. Despite that all Canadians, to a man, women and child, are surely outraged, totally lacking in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.
As I said last time:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures"
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 April, 2010
- There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures
Submitted: 7:58am, PDT, 10 Apr.'10 CBC News
Guergis faces RCMP probe, Minister resigns from cabinet, saying past 9 months a 'very difficult time', April 9, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/09/guergis-leaving-cabinet.html Tab 319
'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark', sorry I meant 'Canada'.
Anyone think it a bit strange that Helena Guergis 'resigns' from her position as Minister but is booted out of Caucus. If she in fact resigned, as opposed to being fired, you would expect that she would offer to sit outside the Con Caucus while she is investigated. She didn't, apparently, Harper booted her out. There is a deliberate symbolism here.
'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' Sorry I meant to say, it is obvious, given Stephen Harper's extreme actions and his style of rule, that there is much more going on than what has been reported in the newspapers.
Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.
Also, why is that no matter what happens Harper gives some excuse for not letting the people of Canada know what is really going on. Despite that all Canadians, to a man, women and child, are surely outraged, totally lacking in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.
Perhaps Harper learned of actual problems in the PMO. Either Harper called in the RCMP in order to give himself an excuse to not reveal any details of the factors he considered in giving Guergis the boot. Or, there is some real issues at play here that warrant police investigation. Given Guergis's position as a Minister and Jaffer's long time and very strong connection to top level Con's, and given Harper's extreme actions and secrecy, is it that far fetched to suggest it goes right up to the top.
***Submitted: 8:19am, 10 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Helena Guergis resigns, now faces RCMP, Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau, Apr 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/793275--helena-guergis-resigns-now-faces-rcmp-probe?bn=1#article
- There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures
Sorry, I meant to say, it is obvious, given Stephen Harper's extreme actions and his style of rule, that there is much more going on than what has been reported in the newspapers.
Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.
Why is Harper always has an excuse for not letting Canadians know what is really going on. Despite all Canadians' outrage, total lack in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.
Is it that far fetched to suggest the rot goes right up to the top.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Guergis faces RCMP probe, Minister resigns from cabinet, saying past 9 months a 'very difficult time', April 9, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/09/guergis-leaving-cabinet.html Tab 319
'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark', sorry I meant 'Canada'.
Anyone think it a bit strange that Helena Guergis 'resigns' from her position as Minister but is booted out of Caucus. If she in fact resigned, as opposed to being fired, you would expect that she would offer to sit outside the Con Caucus while she is investigated. She didn't, apparently, Harper booted her out. There is a deliberate symbolism here.
'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' Sorry I meant to say, it is obvious, given Stephen Harper's extreme actions and his style of rule, that there is much more going on than what has been reported in the newspapers.
Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.
Also, why is that no matter what happens Harper gives some excuse for not letting the people of Canada know what is really going on. Despite that all Canadians, to a man, women and child, are surely outraged, totally lacking in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.
Perhaps Harper learned of actual problems in the PMO. Either Harper called in the RCMP in order to give himself an excuse to not reveal any details of the factors he considered in giving Guergis the boot. Or, there is some real issues at play here that warrant police investigation. Given Guergis's position as a Minister and Jaffer's long time and very strong connection to top level Con's, and given Harper's extreme actions and secrecy, is it that far fetched to suggest it goes right up to the top.
***Submitted: 8:19am, 10 Apr.'10 The Toronto Star
Helena Guergis resigns, now faces RCMP, Joanna Smith, Ottawa Bureau, Apr 10 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/793275--helena-guergis-resigns-now-faces-rcmp-probe?bn=1#article
- There are more things in heaven and earth, Harper, Than are revealed in your disclosures
Sorry, I meant to say, it is obvious, given Stephen Harper's extreme actions and his style of rule, that there is much more going on than what has been reported in the newspapers.
Ignatieff is right (morally) to insist that Harper reveal what he based his decision on. The only way it could possibly have an impact on a police investigation is if Harper learned of things that have not already appeared in the media. If so, presumably he has fully informed the RCMP already. So where's the interference.
Why is Harper always has an excuse for not letting Canadians know what is really going on. Despite all Canadians' outrage, total lack in transparency, total obscuration and obstruction exposes Harper and the Con's to some serious speculation.
Is it that far fetched to suggest the rot goes right up to the top.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
09 April, 2010
- in Reality, Harper and the Con's want to break up Confederation
Posted: 4/9/2010 10:33:52 AM Globe and Mail
Norman Spector, Duceppe may find a changed Canada, 9 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/duceppe-may-find-a-changed-canada/article1528358/ Tab 8
"With the party’s avowed objective of preventing the formation of a majority government of whatever stripe – thereby demonstrating to Canadians that their country is ungovernable"
Norman, if I recall Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc were quite willing to support the co-alition between the Liberal and the NDP. It was Harper who vowed not to allow the Bloc from so doing.
In actuality, Stephen Harper has spent much of his pubic life dedicated to tearing our great nation asunder and has been working towards that end since coming into power. Harper and the Con's have gone to extremes (not surprising for extremists) to make Parliament dysfunctional and then using it as an excuse for marginalizing it and as you so eloquently have put it " thereby demonstrating to Canadians that their country is ungovernable".
It is not surprising that a quarter of Albertans would be happy to see Quebec leave Canada. I am sure there is a quarter that would like to see Alberta leave, including dismantling federalism to achieve this end. Equalization certainly has a lot to do with it. They are enraged that royalties and taxes flow to the Federal government to be paid out in national programs (like health care) and equalization payment not just to Quebec but all the Provinces that may receive them. It would be interesting to see what part of these are amongst the die-hard supporters of Harper and the Con's.
I agree that probably "Most Canadians would agree with Lucien Bouchard that sovereignty will not happen during their lifetimes". Duceppe knows this. Duceppe has made it clear that he and the Bloc are there to get the best deal for Quebec. This, of course, can only happen if Quebec is part of Canada.
In reality, Duceppe and the Bloc want to stay in Confederation and are open up front and transparent about it.
And, in Reality, Harper and the Con's want to break up Confederation and are secretive, closed, obstructive about it.
Who do Canadians have more respect for.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Norman Spector, Duceppe may find a changed Canada, 9 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/duceppe-may-find-a-changed-canada/article1528358/ Tab 8
"With the party’s avowed objective of preventing the formation of a majority government of whatever stripe – thereby demonstrating to Canadians that their country is ungovernable"
Norman, if I recall Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc were quite willing to support the co-alition between the Liberal and the NDP. It was Harper who vowed not to allow the Bloc from so doing.
In actuality, Stephen Harper has spent much of his pubic life dedicated to tearing our great nation asunder and has been working towards that end since coming into power. Harper and the Con's have gone to extremes (not surprising for extremists) to make Parliament dysfunctional and then using it as an excuse for marginalizing it and as you so eloquently have put it " thereby demonstrating to Canadians that their country is ungovernable".
It is not surprising that a quarter of Albertans would be happy to see Quebec leave Canada. I am sure there is a quarter that would like to see Alberta leave, including dismantling federalism to achieve this end. Equalization certainly has a lot to do with it. They are enraged that royalties and taxes flow to the Federal government to be paid out in national programs (like health care) and equalization payment not just to Quebec but all the Provinces that may receive them. It would be interesting to see what part of these are amongst the die-hard supporters of Harper and the Con's.
I agree that probably "Most Canadians would agree with Lucien Bouchard that sovereignty will not happen during their lifetimes". Duceppe knows this. Duceppe has made it clear that he and the Bloc are there to get the best deal for Quebec. This, of course, can only happen if Quebec is part of Canada.
In reality, Duceppe and the Bloc want to stay in Confederation and are open up front and transparent about it.
And, in Reality, Harper and the Con's want to break up Confederation and are secretive, closed, obstructive about it.
Who do Canadians have more respect for.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
08 April, 2010
- Harper wanted to play soldier right from the start
Submitted in two parts: 9:26am & 9:42am, PDT, 8 Apr.'10, The Toronto Star
Travers: Tories pay price for silence on detaineesComment on this story, Apr 8 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/791827--travers-tories-pay-price-for-silence-on-detainees?bn=1 tab 4
Travers is right (morally that is) of course.
However, there are a few things that he has missed the mark by a bit.
"Conservatives were told last summer that Afghanistan’s notorious NDS security directorate was too secretive and abusive to be trusted with prisoners."
It is highly unlikely that this memo came into existence at the same time that the problem with the NDS arose. This secrecy with the NDS was there all the time. By its very nature it had to be known to anyone having any dealings with them. Further, given the extent that this issue was being pursued by the Opposition in Parliament in 2006 and onwards, it is highly unlikely that the NDS secrecy was unknown to Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor and other Con's.
One question that arises is to what extent, if any, Harper and the Con's were complicit in this. After all, extreme secrecy is a hallmark of Harper and his Con's and it would be a fascinating twist on the 'turning a blind eye' scenario. In International law 'turning a blind eye' is no excuse. If the actions are covert, the government may need not have to 'turn a blind eye'. A neat trick would be to let it be known the NDS do things secretly thereby giving an 'out'. Given the very close dealings of Harper and his Con's with the Afghan authorities, including the NDS, is this really that far fetched a concept.
"An open administration, one willing to admit mistakes were made under a flawed system inherited from Liberals, would now be safely in the clear."
This gives the impression that Harper and the Con's merely continued what the Liberal started.
If I recall, one of the first things Harper did when he got in office was to change the roll of Canadians in Afghanistan from peace keepers and society reconstruction was all out active combat. This is obviously a very important distinction, especially when looking at the issue of prisoner transfers.
It appears Harper wanted to play soldier (it's his nature) in Afghanistan and if these things had come to light in 2006 and onwards, it would have seriously jeopardized his ability to do so in Afghanistan - imagine the reaction if Harper had let it be known. So instead he and the other Con's engaged in a course of action whereby instead of given, honest and full answer, they simply responded to every serious inquiry with abuse.
There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution.
However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Travers: Tories pay price for silence on detaineesComment on this story, Apr 8 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/791827--travers-tories-pay-price-for-silence-on-detainees?bn=1 tab 4
Travers is right (morally that is) of course.
However, there are a few things that he has missed the mark by a bit.
"Conservatives were told last summer that Afghanistan’s notorious NDS security directorate was too secretive and abusive to be trusted with prisoners."
It is highly unlikely that this memo came into existence at the same time that the problem with the NDS arose. This secrecy with the NDS was there all the time. By its very nature it had to be known to anyone having any dealings with them. Further, given the extent that this issue was being pursued by the Opposition in Parliament in 2006 and onwards, it is highly unlikely that the NDS secrecy was unknown to Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor and other Con's.
One question that arises is to what extent, if any, Harper and the Con's were complicit in this. After all, extreme secrecy is a hallmark of Harper and his Con's and it would be a fascinating twist on the 'turning a blind eye' scenario. In International law 'turning a blind eye' is no excuse. If the actions are covert, the government may need not have to 'turn a blind eye'. A neat trick would be to let it be known the NDS do things secretly thereby giving an 'out'. Given the very close dealings of Harper and his Con's with the Afghan authorities, including the NDS, is this really that far fetched a concept.
"An open administration, one willing to admit mistakes were made under a flawed system inherited from Liberals, would now be safely in the clear."
This gives the impression that Harper and the Con's merely continued what the Liberal started.
If I recall, one of the first things Harper did when he got in office was to change the roll of Canadians in Afghanistan from peace keepers and society reconstruction was all out active combat. This is obviously a very important distinction, especially when looking at the issue of prisoner transfers.
It appears Harper wanted to play soldier (it's his nature) in Afghanistan and if these things had come to light in 2006 and onwards, it would have seriously jeopardized his ability to do so in Afghanistan - imagine the reaction if Harper had let it be known. So instead he and the other Con's engaged in a course of action whereby instead of given, honest and full answer, they simply responded to every serious inquiry with abuse.
There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution.
However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)