May 24 - The session of the Gomery Inquiry currently being aired on CPAC is (at least partially - it's not over yet) in English ... transcript should be available tonight here.

From Newsbeat 1:

Sponsorship loss may be an additional $100 million (CTV says it would now total $355 million)

Groupaction Marketing, which allegedly funded the federal Liberals under the table for years, issued $406,000 in cheques that could have been converted to cash, says a report tabled at the Gomery inquiry Tuesday and,

Kroll also attached a dollar figure to all contributions to the Liberals - registered and unregistered - heard during testimony at the inquiry.

The auditors said $768,000 was donated above board to the party and added, "if the amounts identified by Mr. Brault as payments for a political purpose are included, this amount rises to $2.5 million."

[...]

Documents previously tabled at the inquiry indicate Brault paid the $430,000 to the Pluri Design firm owned by graphic designer Jacques Corriveau, a friend of former prime minister Jean Chretien. Brault has said Corriveau told him the money was destined for the Liberals.

Kroll, while not backing the claim, said "the available documentation does not indicate what services, if any, were provided by PluriDesign to Groupaction for the $430,370 it received."

The auditors said they requested Corriveau's bank statements from 1994 to 1999, along with other financial data, but that the information was "not available for our review."

Coffin may plead guilty.

Gagliano loses suit - Gomery stays. As for Chretien,

If Chretien wins a favourable court ruling, it could block Gomery from delivering two reports planned for the end of the year.

During the break, you might want to read today's editorial in the Toronto Sun.

Unrelated to Adscam but good nonetheless, Paul Jackson gives some good advice to the "spoiled brats of the entertainment world."

15:55 - Session is back on.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

May 24 - If you read Bill Strong's post on the Royal Commonwealth Society of Toronto yesterday you might want to make a return visit. Looks as though whoever is behind bloc-Harper.com might be trying to cover some tracks ... lucky thing Kate grabbed a screenshot yesterday.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Private gripe: deleted. I just won't sleep. Ever.

16:45 Neale News is linking to Bill's site and has before and after screenshots of the Whois page for blocharper.com. The first shows the Royal Commonwealth Society of Toronto Foundation as owners of the blocharper.com domain name, and the second shows the Freedom International Association as the owner. Both versions have the same Newmarket address, phone and fax numbers and show Sinclair Stevens as the webmaster and technical contact but the second has different email addresses for him.

Bill has a new post up here.

I don't know that anything illegal is going on, but the overnight change of who is listed as owning the domain name seems to imply that somebody else thinks it is, to say the least, indiscreet for the Royal Commonwealth Society of Toronto Foundation to own a domain name which makes clear it's intention to remove the leader of the Official - and Loyal - Opposition.

This is the website for Freedom International (link from the post on this issue at Colbert's Comments.)

Posted by: Debbye at 01:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

May 24 - The weight of the Liberal Party's notion of how to best protect their own interests good governance daily becomes more unbearable. The latest: Taxpayers foot $1M bill for Liberals' sponsorship 'war room' for a secret team that monitors the Gomery Inquiry and preps the Prime Minister for questions that might be raised in the House of Commons:

Documents obtained by the Citizen through the Access to Information Act reveal that the rapid-response war room, which is in almost daily contact with the Prime Minister's Office and the government's top bureaucrat, Alex Himelfarb, operates out of the Privy Council Office.

The cost of the strategic office, which does everything from preparing answers for question period in the House of Commons to keeping the Prime Minister's Office abreast of testimony at the inquiry, covers the salaries of staff and expenses.

The war room and its cost came to light on the heels of last week's complaints from Justice John Gomery about officials exaggerating the cost of his inquiry.

Officials at the commission looking into the sponsorship scandal say the total cost of the actual inquiry will come in under $32 million. Judge Gomery said government officials have "leaked" to the media that it is costing departments another $40 million to cover costs at four key departments, including the Privy Council Office. "It's an exaggeration and it's twisting reality," Judge Gomery said last week.

Revelations from the inquiry, which is digging into the $250-million sponsorship scheme, forced the Liberals to set aside $750,000 in a trust fund to pay back money improperly obtained by the party.

One memo to Mr. Himelfarb indicates the strategy office was set up almost immediately after the Martin government launched the inquiry in February 2004 upon the release of Auditor General Sheila Fraser's damning report on the sponsorship program.

Dated Feb. 18, 2004, the memo describes "the intergovernmental co-ordination group" being set up in the PCO, the nerve centre of the federal government, under the proposed direction of bureaucrat Guy McKenzie. However, the summary and attachments are mostly blanked out, under section 23 of the Access to Information Act, due to "solicitor/client privilege."

The office's operating budget now totals $1,068,000 after its first-year budget of $534,000 in 2004-05 was renewed for a second year, according to Hali Gernon of the PCO.

Ms. Gernon said the office has a small staff of about "four or five" employees and since June 2004 has been under the direction of lawyer Ursula Menke, the former deputy commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard and inspector general of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Judge Gomery has made it clear he doesn't appreciate the Martin government adding its hidden costs to his overall budget. In an exchange with an ad executive, the judge said: "What they did was ... put together the fees of everyone in the Justice Department that worked on the file, the photocopies they made at the PCO and God knows what other expenses that were totally beyond the commission's control."

Posted by: Debbye at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

May 24 - Their numbers are growing: Harper liberals

(Thanks, maz2.)

Oh, and bonus points for those who get the reference in the post title.)

Posted by: Debbye at 08:27 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Zahra Kazemi

May 24 - The fruitlessness of soft power has come to be symbolized by one outstanding example: the failure to achieve justice for Montreal photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, who was murdered on or about July 11, 2003, in an Iranian prison for the unspeakable crime of photographing a vigil outside Evin Prison - the very prison in which she would later be tortured and killed.

Those of us who recognized immediately that Kazemi's death was linked to the struggle for democracy in Iran hoped - briefly - that the Canadian government would, by pressing Iran for answers to Kazemi's death, be able to assist their struggle. We were disappointed, because the Canadian government seemed to do more to protect the Iranian mullocracy than a Canadian citizen.

Their calumny was further revealed by later reports that she was defiant in prison and was subjected to unspeakable torture, but we did not get this information from the government which should have pressed the investigation but from British, American and Canadian news sources.

The lethargic response by the Canadian government, first by accepting the dubious explanation of the Iranian government and then by dithering, delaying, and finally mildly protesting was sharply challenged by the news media in Canada, which did not allow the story to die, and by Kazemi's son, Stephan Hachemi.

Coincidentally, 2 months after Jean Chretien stepped down as PM Khazakhstan News reported that he had been named special adviser to the board of directors of Calgary-based PetroKazakhstan, and the same item mentions a lucrative swap arrangement with Iranian oil refineries (read relevant excerpts here.)

Kazemi's son wrote a scathing letter to the National Post which can be read here.

And then there is this: The Canadian ambassador to Iran has been recalled twice as a response to Iran's failure to achieve justice for Kazemi, but relations with Iran are not only friendly but downright cozy - so cozy that the Canadian government planned to give an official from Iran - a known state sponsor of terror and a member of the Axis of Evil - a look at the workings of the Advance Passenger Information database in August, 2003, little over a month since Kazemi's death had been confirmed as due to torture (more information under extended entry.) (Link from lfg.)

Stephan Hachemi has been steadfast in his quest to achieve justice for his mother and again renewed his call for Canada to take action against Iran.

Canada's record is dismal, though. Thus far it is Iran 5, Canada 0.

CBC has provided their timeline, and I have a slightly different (and admittedly incomplete) one in the extended entry. more...

Posted by: Debbye at 04:38 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2406 words, total size 19 kb.

May 23 - That's right, two, and they both are taking place in Baghdad.

The first is military: Iraqi, U.S. troops launch offensive:

Seven Iraqi battalions backed by U.S. forces launched an offensive in the capital Sunday in an effort to stanch the violence that has killed more than 550 people in less than a month.

WASHINGTON, May 23, 2005 – Local commanders from the Iraqi Interior and Defense ministries and coalition forces met May 21 to discuss Operation Squeeze Play, which is designed to deal with terrorist actions in Baghdad's Rusafa neighborhood.

"This is just the beginning of a new era of cooperation between the Iraqi police, public-order brigades and the Iraqi army. From now on, forces from the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Defense and coalition forces will work together to defeat the terrorists in Baghdad," U.S. Army Col. Joseph DiSalvo, commander of coalition forces in the eastern Baghdad area, said to open the meeting.

An Iraqi commander said it was important to note this was the first time all the different Iraqi ministry units were meeting to talk about an operation. "This will go a long way toward making all of our groups more effective and unified," he said. (Emhasis added)

Four U.S. soldiers were killed May 22 in operations in Iraq, while coalition and Iraqi forces continue to round up weapons and suspected terrorists.

Three soldiers attached to Task Force Freedom were killed and one was injured in two separate terrorist attacks in Mosul, military officials in Baghdad reported. The injured soldier was taken to a combat hospital for treatment.

One Task Force Liberty soldier died of his wounds after a car bomb exploded near a combat patrol in Tikrit, officials said.

In other operations, coalition and Iraqi forces in Baghdad detained 285 suspected terrorists in less than 24 hours, officials said today. The action was part of Operation Squeeze Play, a "massive joint combat operation," which is still under way, to hunt down, kill or capture terrorists who have been staging attacks in the Iraqi capital.

[...]

"The majority of Iraqis are fed up with terrorism and terrorists, and they're doing something about it by turning them in," Kent said.

Iraqi and coalition forces have realized some recent successes in thwarting attacks. (Emphasis added)

Zarqawi has tried to alter the conditions of war, and although he may believe it is acceptable to murder innocent men, women and children in his bloodlust, we most vehemently disagree and will forge on and conduct this war under our terms and true to our moral convictions.

And as for second squeeze play, we have this not terribly surprising story from the NY Times: Sunni Arabs Are Uniting To Compete with Shiites, a somewhat misleading headline which reports something that was hoped for:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 21 - In a stark reversal from earlier this year, when Sunni Arabs boycotted national elections here, a broad gathering of Sunni sheiks, clerics and political leaders formed a political alliance on Saturday, seeking to win back the political ground they had lost to Shiites.

The meeting was the first wide-scale effort by Iraq's embittered and increasingly isolated Sunnis to band together politically, and was broadly attended by what organizers said was about 2,000 Sunni Arabs from Baghdad and nearby cities. The gathering was an implicit acknowledgment that it had been a mistake to turn away from the political process and allow Shiites to control the government for the first time in modern Iraqi history. (Emphasis added.)

There's a bit more in the article about feigned outrage over posting the photos of Saddam in his undies, which of course was wrong (and besides, gave my cats nightmares) but I'll always have this:

Posted by: Debbye at 01:30 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 697 words, total size 5 kb.

May 23 - Oh course there's more about the attempt to bribe Grewal (Grewal says he wanted to show Grits were dirty) and the contention that Grewal sought the bribe (Grewal wouldn't take no for an answer in today's news.

I tend to deal with unwanted advances from persistent types a bit more decisively than Chief-of-staff Tim Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh: I refuse to meet with them or talk to them. Nothing says "No" like, well, "No!"

Having beer and pizza together says "Maybe," not "No" (but then I haven't dated in over 30 years, so maybe the rules have changed.)

I've lost track a bit: exactly where did the conversation(s) between Grewal and Murphy take place? I seem to remember that it was in Grewal's office, but can't find confirmation.

The refusal to release the tape raises some awkward questions; now, I can understand why there might be some hesitancy to turn the tape over to the RCMP (that's surely the saddest thing I ever wrote) but I should think it would be appropriate to turn over a copy of that tape or even (heh!) release it on the internet.

(Links via Neale News.)

13:08 - Keith has confirmed that eight minutes of the tape are available here for those who wish to hear the portion for themselves. [Note: every time I've tried to access it my computer crashes and thus I can't vouch for it personally but there are some, like Andrew Coyne and Keith, with whom I am more than willing to to on faith.]

Keith raises some interesting questions here about Grewal and a possible Liberian connection, and yes, I think it best if we simply go after the truth.

17:28 The Globe and Mail is also urging the tapes be released, and Kate has an interesting conjecture here as to why letting them dribble out slowly is a good strategy.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:30 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 3 kb.

1 the tape is on the internet, i think, try ctv's site, i think that is where I listened to it. or maybe london fog. imho, the tape is too equivocal to prove who approached who. both of the principals come out looking bad, in my books.

Posted by: keith at May 23, 2005 12:30 PM (xfdnu)

2 My mistake Debbye, only the 8 minutes of the tapes are available for download, at the following URL. http://gopinion.com/breaking/ Apparently there are hours of tapes. I wish this story would go away.

Posted by: keith at May 23, 2005 12:42 PM (xfdnu)

3 Thanks for the clarification, Keith; I had trouble downloading the darned thing (computer kept crashing) so was going on what others said about there being only 8 minutes available online. But I think I will post the link and hope other have better luck. I'm not sure it can go away; were Grewal a law enforcement official he would look bad, but I'm not sure he can be charged for entrapment as he was acting as a, um, not law enforcement official. By the way, I loved a comment you made on another blog about anger management, and hope you failed the course ;-)

Posted by: Debbye at May 23, 2005 01:06 PM (3qqx5)

4 paulmartintime.ca is frozen with no new activity since May 2004. The host was threatened with a lawsuit by Martin. The fear is working. andrewcoyne.com has suffered the same fate. Posting a few words which seem stilted/fearful even. The Dark Side controls Canada's people. RIP, Canada.

Posted by: maz2 at May 23, 2005 01:31 PM (F2mGL)

5 George Orwell: 1984 "... imagine a boot stamping on a human face-- for ever." In Zimbabwe: Posted by Clive On 05/23/2005 8:30:09 AM PDT · 6 replies · 198+ views Sun Media (Canada) ^ | 2005-05-23 | Michael Hartnack HARARE, Zimbabwe (A) - Paramilitary units armed with batons, riot shields and tear gas patrolled main roads in Harare Monday as police warned they would not tolerate protests against their crackdown on street trading - the only livelihood for thousands of poor township dwellers. Police Chief Superintendent Oliver Mandipaka said 9,653 people were arrested in the five-day blitz on street vendors, flea market stalls and other informal businesses. He said people were preparing to demonstrate but that police were ready and commuter minibuses were prevented from entering the city centre. Angry demonstrators clashed with police over the weekend in the... In Canada: The boot on the blogger's face: andrewcoyne.com paulmartintime.ca Who is next?

Posted by: maz2 at May 23, 2005 02:04 PM (aK7lm)

6 My oldest son has often complained that the problem with Americans is that we often communicate by what we don't say. Maybe he's right; it's one of those things that I can't see because I'm too close. So, maz2, maybe you're looking at this thing too squarely: if Coyne is relying on readers to read between the lines then so be it - personally, I found his recent post title to speak volumes more than the post itself. We're going to see people - like the folks at Paul Martin Times - buckle under, but what of it? We.Keep.Fighting. For all the talk about "tipping points" I have yet to see anyone actually recognize one until after it happens ... those of us in the trenches just stick it out, with steely determination, and see the job through (yeah, and then the twitty analysts come after and irritate the heck out of us. Sigh. We ignore them.) If someone stuck in Toronto can say that, so can you. Keep the faith. The most serious accusation against the Libranos may well be that they lost the faith -- faith in the people, in the decency and intregrity of the Canadian people, but that doesn't mean you have to do so also. Hang in there. I would really miss your comments here, at Kate's, and at the Shotgun. Really.

Posted by: Debbye at May 23, 2005 02:36 PM (3qqx5)

7 I would like to believe that AC's position & reputation, and the need to maintain them, have played a part in his decision to remove comments. That being said, I will miss that as I learned a great deal from the exchange of ideas. But I can't see where Kate's business (which appears to be custom paint jobs and breeding dogs) could be threatened by the libs (although I hope her tax records are well-kept as a 'surprise' audit could be in the cards). Debbye I have no idea whether your professional position could be damaged either. I guess what I'm saying is we need to count on people that are as immune as possible to keep up the good work. Two days after crying "the sky is falling" re AC's site, I find it interesting that (a) I'm not even VAGUELY embarassed by my immediate assumption of the worst and (b) neither is anyone giving me grief over same. In fact, debbye you even made a similar remark in your posting of yesterday. We are in trying times and it's hard to maintain hope when doors seem to close around us. I'm holding out hope for a surprise in Labrador - go check out the comments from bic at CQ, very encouraging.

Posted by: Candace at May 23, 2005 03:35 PM (R7nd+)

8 CTV likely got the original recording from Daddy; Bell Canada.. Not that CTV doesn't do what it is told.. protect Bell's stock price.. protect Bell's stock price.. force Quebec to stay in Canada.. force Quebec to stay in Canada.. make those suckers in Ontario pay.. make those suckers in Ontario pay..

Posted by: Brian Walsh at May 23, 2005 05:12 PM (vAI+5)

9 Candace, I too referenced Chicken Little in my emails when I was trying to figure out what was up with Coyne! But now that, in Coyne's words, there are no rules, how can we not assume the worst? Hang in there. There will be setbacks and victories, and only time will sort out which is which. But a forum such as Coyne offered is definitely needed. Brian, slow down a bit. CTV could also have gotten the tape (or at least the 8 minutes) at the same place many of you heard it.

Posted by: Debbye at May 23, 2005 05:53 PM (3qqx5)

10 It is pretty apparent from looking at A.Coyne's reporting that he has not been intimidated by the Liberal juggernaut which seems to have taken most of his fellow professionals hostage. He has, however, been sued, and so has his newspaper. That means that he has some short-term legal responsibilities which none of the people who have posted at his site share with him, encouraging words aside. It was nice of him to let people use his cachet and his reputation to enjoy themselves, but pretty soon the heady rum of self-pleasure becomes a non-cooperative stink. It's like a house party that's open to anybody; eventually, nobody has a clue who the host is, and illegal acts start to take place, and you have to put down the carrot sticks and become a bouncer. Which brings me to the thread which he referred to as being odious to him, and which he felt he needed to edit out: No sensible person who has observed the deteriorating political scene vis-a-vis Gomery and, oh, say, lawsuits against journalists and such should discount the possibility that Liberal insiders might find that it benefits their cause to drop in on AC's open web sit and post things which are actionable. Would anyone here be suprised? At it's best his comments sections was a chance for Canadians to learn from and understand each other, and it was nice of AC to have allowed such interesting discourse to go on under the banner of his name. But the deterioration in tone and the repeated posting of cryptic inane slandererous thread-deaf comments every two minutes by the same people were beginning to predominate. I don't really blame him for putting down the carrot sticks and picking up the hose. And besides, when you consider the times we live in, and his legacy as a journalist, he's got some important work to do.

Posted by: EBDresen at May 23, 2005 07:32 PM (XwstS)

11 debbye, the Liberia reference is actually from a commenter on my Thin Grewal post. Thanks for the link too, by the way! Always helpful, in order to get back into Marsupia. (I slipped back into Rodentia recently in the TTLB ecosytem ) Cheers.

Posted by: keith at May 23, 2005 09:07 PM (HRjgG)

12 Yes, I thought that very same thing EB . It would seem fitting, given the character of at least some Martinites, to post smut and then threaten lawyer persuit. You can back track email by using properties on the header, but posts don't leave much in the way of fingerprints. Damn those sneaky l.. gentlemen of the commons. TonyGuitar

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 23, 2005 10:58 PM (rmMzv)

13 Debbye, I have emailed you a copy of the Grewal tape.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at May 24, 2005 12:59 AM (pPVQ0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 23 - In case anyone hasn't checked his website, Coyne has a new post up which links to the Toronto Star's Graham Fraser on the Grewal-Murphy tape and notes Funny, that's just what I said.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

May 23 - One of the stories I intended to cover until the Coyne situation threw me off-stride was the Poundmaker First Nation Working Group protest that Darcey of Dust My Broom has been covering here with follow-ups here and here.

Encapsulated, members of the Cree Nation are taking action against corruption, and the shame of it is that

a) they have a lot more guts than we do, and
b) we are too intimidated by the "hands off criticizing the leaders of the victimized segments of society" meme that has allowed corruption to flourish when we should be supporting those who demand clean government and are willing to fight for it.

We didn't have a problem criticizing corruption in the Ukraine, but this is in our own backyard and we suddenly are too polite?

Read the posts and spread the word. The issues raised by this latest incidence of corruption hits too close to home to go all squeamish.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:07 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

May23 - Crabby mrbill is issuing a challenge (and he has the creds to do so): An open letter to the subjects of Canada:

Our freedoms are being taken away from us, and like sheep, we don't say anything and go merrily on our way. Big brother is taking care of us, or we do say something, and it is on our blogs, and we visit other blogs and leave comments to say we have been there and we agree with what we have read, and then we go back to our blogs and link to what we have just read with a new post, and so it goes, round and round, and all the while, our leaders just continue doing what they want.

Ask yourself, and be honest with your answers.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

May 22 -

04:20 - Commenter Candace left a note that comments at Andrew Coyne's blog are gone - and I mean all of them seemingly on all posts, past and current.

I'm trying to find out if there is some innocuous explanation, like band-width or something, or if something more disturbing is going on.

I just woke up and thus am in an ultra state of not knowing here ... let me know in the comments if you know anything.

Andrew Coyne's blog has been, arghh, I'm not sufficiently awake to express how important the comment section has been for us but then I don't really have to explain to those those of you who hang there.

Candace, thanks.

04:31 - Wow, AC is being sued by Tim Murphy, Paul Martin's chief of staff? Robot Guy, aka Ed Minchau, has a lengthy post here. (7:09 - Note: you may have to hit refresh a few times or go to the home url. Darned blogger.)

Candace is right: this is an assault on freedom of the press. According to this in the Globe and Mail,

"Mr. Murphy has retained legal counsel and will be pursuing a libel action against Andrew Coyne of the National Post, and is also considering a potential claim against Gilles Duceppe."

I'm leaving this post on top until I find out what's going on.

9:07 - Bruce is also on the case (see post right under this one here - it too has a later time on it which will keep it below this one throughout the day) and it appears some some comments under some posts at AC's site are now readable.

10:26 Commenter maz2 reminded me of a previous incident in which the Canadian government interfered in blogs (the attempt to close down Paul Martin Times) and I remembered another one: the heavy-handed treatment of BlogsCanada by the Canadian government.

I've been asked before why there are no Milblogs in Canada. Is the answer staring us in the face?

12:30 A wise man just reminded me that words like "alleged," "it appears that" and "there might be" are our best friends these days.

12:41 - Coyne speaks! It appears he doesn't yet realize how worried we all were.

Those nine days of infamy really have destroyed my beliefs about Canada. I'm going to spend the next few minutes breathing again and contemplate how easy it was for me to assume the worst.

17:47 - From this May 20 post at The Raging Ranter, Mike Duffy of CTV's Countdown reported that "Murphy wants to sue Andrew Coyne for printing transcripts of the taped conversation in which he was attempting to bribe MP Gurmalt Grewal." (The quote is from the post, not from Duffy.) The post pre-dates the Globe report of May 21 that states that Murphy has retained council etc. (see excerpt above.) (Link via London Fog.)

I don't get it; AC's post on his site linked to the Globe and Mail for the transcript here and that article is dated May 20, 1:02 a.m.

This is making less and less sense. Kate isn't the only person wondering what in in the column Bruce and I published could possibly be considered actionable.

I am becoming more and more convinced that we are dealing with a case of intimidation by the government, not libel by Coyne.

May 23 - 12:15 - Some welcome support from Pixy Misa in Australia: First they came for the bloggers.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:20 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 613 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Do you have an escape route in mind?

Posted by: Jay at May 22, 2005 06:38 AM (PuNh2)

2 I hadn't considered it, Jay! Seriously, this may be where we make our stand if, and I stress if, AC is in trouble. Right now I'm trying to stay in Collection Information Mode.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 07:05 AM (VdlF8)

3 I'm assuming the suit against Coyne is based on his column in the Post the other day, rather than just posting some of the transcript. The column takes some of the quotes from Murphy and speculates about their meaning. It's pretty hard hitting. I had noticed Coyne hadn't posted it as he usually does, and the Post didn't put the column online either. Tell you what, Debbye. When the kids are hypnotized by Dora the Explorer this morning, I'll type out the column. I don't feel right about posting the whole column on my site because of copyright laws, so I'll send you half to post on your site. We can link each other and thus the whole scandalous column can be available on the internet. Let me know if you're interested. (And also let me know if the column is already posted somewhere...)

Posted by: Bruce Gottfred at May 22, 2005 07:56 AM (julXE)

4 Yes! I'll post my answer on your site too.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 08:02 AM (VdlF8)

5 Whoops. The column is still up on the National Post site (subscriber only, though). But I still think this is what AC is being sued over and I'm still interested in posting it. Let me know if you (or someone else) wants to share the burden.

Posted by: Bruce Gottfred at May 22, 2005 08:15 AM (julXE)

6 So somebody explain to me why Canadians aren't storming Castle Frankenstein?

Posted by: Jay at May 22, 2005 08:34 AM (PuNh2)

7 Bruce, I don't know what's going on but I am concerned that this is happening on a holiday weekend. I had planned on staying low myself, and if not for commenter Candace I wouldn't have known this had happened. I'm perfectly happy to follow your lead in this. Coyne's site has been a major gathering place for politically active Canadians and if he's under attack then so are we all. Jay, you already know you're asking the wrong person! But I'll try: for one thing, Victoria Day is the biggest holiday weekend in Canada and the kick-off to summer. Every Toronto kid, cool or no, is partying out of town. Cottagers open up their cottages and others go camping. It's the weekend to set bedding plants out and wear shorts no matter what the weather. Oh yeah, and drink lots of beer. Mostly, though, I don't know. I don't know how the Liberals were returned even as a minority government and why people are a-scared of the Conservative Party. I don't know how Canadians can believe Canada under the Liberals (and the U.N. under anybody) are anything other than corrupt, despotic, hypocrites. I fear that the longer the Liberals rule, though, the more devastating it will be when Canadians finally bring out the torches and pitchforks. (I won't say "if" because sometimes you can only go on faith, and, for reasons I don't understand myself, I still have faith.)

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 08:57 AM (VdlF8)

8 Okay, the first half is up. I hope you received the second half.

Posted by: Bruce Gottfred at May 22, 2005 09:08 AM (julXE)

9 I hope you live close to the border. And I guess maybe I should've said Castle Martinstein. It seems to me Canada is ignoring a problem that while major, is still fixable. It's like cancer - catch it early enough it's a minor snip, wait too long (where Canada is now) and it's major surgery, but it looks like Canada has gone beyond all that and is insisting on no treatment at all and we all know where that leads.

Posted by: Jay at May 22, 2005 09:15 AM (PuNh2)

10 Jay, there's an old saying about evil needing the inaction of good people to triumph but that implies that good people can stop the triumph of evil. Follow the opening link in the post below for the actions of at least one good man who is affirming the writings of another good man. Dare to hope.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 09:42 AM (VdlF8)

11 Thank you. Regards from a concerned Canadian in Buenos Aires, Andrew

Posted by: Andrew Barden at May 22, 2005 10:03 AM (B44l0)

12 This blog shut down previously under threat of legal action by Martin/Liberals. http://www.paulmartintime.ca

Posted by: maz2 at May 22, 2005 10:10 AM (aUNUY)

13 Direct hit, maz2, and there was also some heavy handed treatment of BlogsCanada last year.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 10:41 AM (VdlF8)

14 I read through all the comments on Coyne's latest post last night, and near the end there were some posts about Joe Clarke that I think would be considered libelous.

Posted by: Snowy at May 22, 2005 10:47 AM (6krEN)

15 I am curious too as to why all comments were suspended. I was reading through the stuff about Joe Clark too but don't know if that would be the reason. It seemed to me, at least at the point where I left, that the discussion over that was pretty much winding down so why bother? The whole thing started over a potential book coming out and although interesting I wish the whole subject had never come up. If the suspension is over comments then I would hope that AC would post a message to that effect, kind of let posters know his thoughts and what he was unhappy with. If it is regarding legal action then I would also like to see him state that on the main page somewhere "suspended due to legal action", it would clarify things for us a bit better. He would be allowed to post that much at least, wouldn't he? If he is just pissed at us then I hope he lets us know rather than just shut down the blog. I love AC's insight and it would kill me to see him silenced.

Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at May 22, 2005 11:02 AM (glkWC)

16 Andrew, glad to be of service! Snowy, that is hardly grounds for Coyne to be sued for libel! I've read some very defamatory remarks about the USA in the media up here as well as libelous comments about the president in blogs so, as an American citizen, do I therefore have grounds to sue them all for the pain and suffering their comments have caused me and my family? I even have a case; some of those stupid reports have caused me a lot of difficulty at work.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 11:04 AM (VdlF8)

17 Anne, I live in Toronto (you know, the Centre of the World) and sympathize with your suffering!

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 11:08 AM (VdlF8)

18 Debbye, thanks for the BAiTOlanche.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at May 22, 2005 11:44 AM (pPVQ0)

19 >Snowy, that is hardly grounds for Coyne to be sued for libel! Hmmm, did you actually read the comments about Clarke? Coyne is responsible for the content that is published on his site, and I think based on what was posted there, Clarke could very well have had a libel case if the comments had been left standing. A lot of people read Coyne's comments section and the inflammatory and purportedly "inside" information about Clarke's private life, if untrue, would definitely have had a negative impact on his reputation. Why comments were removed in the previous thread, I don't know. As for the other threat against Coyne, I agree, it hardly seems to be grounds for libel as it's all there on tape.

Posted by: Snowy at May 22, 2005 11:44 AM (6krEN)

20 >I've read some very defamatory remarks about the USA in the media up here as well as libelous comments about the president in blogs so, as an American citizen, do I therefore have grounds to sue them all for the pain and suffering their comments have caused me and my family? Very bad analogy. If you were a high profile person like Joe Clarke and someone were posting intimate details about your PERSONAL and family life on a popular and well read blog, information that would be damaging to your reputation, your family your career, etc. you would have grounds to sue for libel.

Posted by: Snowy at May 22, 2005 11:53 AM (6krEN)

21 Snowy, I think we both forgot that it's Tim Murphy, not Clark, who is threatening legal action which argues against anything in the comments and more for his column on Grewal and Murphy (which is still available online for National Post subscribers.) Also, the Smoking Tape posts are still up which are much more scathing than the column. Curiouser and curiouser.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 12:19 PM (1Tl2v)

22 This speculation is exactly why I wish AC would post something which would clear up the mystery. Maybe he just got around to opening his bill for bandwidth and sh*t himself?? ;-> If it is due to comments well then we may have lost a great place to discuss things. I would certainly understand IF his feelings are that he doesn't want to (nor should he!) babysit a bunch of grown adults. For the most part it seemed that the majority of posters were respectful and some great dialogue was being produced but,it only takes one or two... Candace, are you absolutely everywhere? Good lord you get around girl but I love reading you! Hi Debbye, you like my moniker huh? I was thinking of changing it, may come across a bit whiney, maybe enduring in Ontario? Ontario is so big that I am actually about 1800 km away from Toronto, I may be geographically closer to Calgary I think, guess that sounds strange? It does too many. Where I live we actually call it "the other Ontario", we are even on Central time instead of Eastern. I will keep checking on AC's site, hope you posts something soon!

Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at May 22, 2005 12:21 PM (glkWC)

23 Well, AC has spoken and he is not happy. Please check his blog ASAP.

Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at May 22, 2005 12:49 PM (glkWC)

24 We probably crossed paths, Anne. I went to his site right after reading your previous post! That explains the comments but not the lawsuit which if only a threat is deplorable and if real is dangerous to the health of liberty in this country.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 01:12 PM (x0ejO)

25 Comment: I think you all should let the Captain know about these comments and make sure he reads them. He can keep everything online if necessary, and you all can post and comment via CaptainsQuarters if necessary. Second comment: There is one way we can all have a very direct and heavy impact on everything we're talking about here. It is to put out the threat that I enlarge on below, which was posted earlier today on Angry. I think it needs to be said here. Sometimes it's easier to fight another way. None of us can afford to go up against the mob in court. And that is what might be happening. Organized crime and a few very rich families are controlling Canada and they own the Liberal Party. They do not need a good excuse to sue you. And they can drum up witness if necessary. Regardless, you will have to defend yourself in court. That can break most people. Be very careful. No-one can sue you for doing the following. (Posted previously on Angry): I'm becoming very concerned about Stephen Harper and the CPC on two counts. First, I'm not a damn bit sorry for Peter MacKay. If these guys were serious about their mission, and that is to defeat the Liberals, they would be putting business first and pleasure second. We need an organization similar to a strike force to defeat these guys. Let's get serious. It looks to me like the CPC are no different than the Liberals, self serving and quite frankly concerned more about their own paycheque and their own well-being than they are about the good of their country. Second, why is Harper not making their platform public? They say that it's because the Liberals will steal it. If this is true then their objectives, once they get into power, are not my objectives. My objectives are to see the Gun Law and Kyoto killed, an immediate inquiry into Canada's part in the Oil for Food scandal (among others), and a large budget established to re-build our armed forces. There are others. If the CPC thinks that the Liberals might steal their platform then these must not be in their platform. If that is the case then they will not get my vote. If these planks are not in their platform I will immediately take out a membership in the Separation Party of Alberta http://www.separationalberta.com/. I would like to see all Western Canadians who voted for the CPC last time send an email to Harper and their MPs that they will do the same thing if he doesn't get his act together and begin to explain to Central Canada that there are two threats of defection they are dealing with, not just Quebec. And if anyone thinks Alberta can't pull it off they are ignorant. There are more pissed off Albertans right now than there are Quebecers. And there are a lot of pissed off Quebecers. If the CPC thinks they can gain votes in Quebec and Ontario by buying their votes with promises they are wrong. But serious threats of Western separation will work, same as they have for Quebec over the years. How often have you heard in past elections the comment; "I'm voting for the Liberals because they can keep Canada together"? If Canadians see one day the Bloc (who want to separate) and the CPC (who are fighting with a growing separation movement in Alberta) actually working together for the good of Canada then they may begin to get serious about what's happening and decide to vote CPC. They will know that they cannot vote Liberal because that guarantees the separation of Quebec. So they will be forced to vote CPC. The choice will be to keep Kyoto, et al, and lose Canada, or kill Kyoto et al and keep a united Canada. Like I say, it's time to get down and dirty. I don't think the CPC are capable of this. I guess I'm saying my vote is for sale. Right now it's between the CPC and the Separation Party of Alberta. I hope the CPC win but I'm beginning to doubt they will. Like I said in another post a few days ago, I vote for planks, not people.

Posted by: John Crittenden at May 22, 2005 02:01 PM (cONYb)

26 Yeah, I saw right after I posted that you were on top of it, sorry for jumping too soon! Our two kids, 21 & 23, are back for the summer from university. They each bring with them boyfriend/girlfriend and many, many friends in this age group. I now have a very busy home but don't mind and I get some interesting stuff. As you can imagine, this kind of group is all over the map regarding politics. Discussing what happened at AC's site and several other dismaying events this year brings to light that one of the "cool" things to do in this age group is to invade and shut down discussion groups, just for the fun of it. The mentality attached to this is akin to the same kind of people who write viruses, etc. only it is much easier and it is all about the attention and getting the power. As soon as a site like AC's starts getting popular it inevitably will attract the worst. I know that some are for real but many are just there for the laugh. I was involved with a site last winter (not politics) and it was taken over, eventually shut down. A short time later at another place one of the individuals posted what a hoot it was to have done this and that they actively sought out areas of opposing interest to them so they could have them closed. A different place went private but after a few weeks it was broken into. Last I heard yahoo and the police were still investigating three months ago but what happened was so malicious that hardly anyone is together anymore. I fear that this place will be taken over as well as others. In past I pleaded with others to not respond at all, not even to say "go away" but the bait is usually to tempting for many. There is no way that the average person is able to monitor a busy site in their spare time, it's all about trust, good manners and respect. Going private is not really the answer because these places are about attracting new people with new and good opinions and ideas. Does anyone have any ideas at all on how to handle this problem? Apologies for the long post.

Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at May 22, 2005 02:38 PM (glkWC)

27 That's interesting, Anne - but what can possibly be "fun" about shutting down a discussion? And how does one go "private" anyway? And they are in their early 20s? sounds kinda juvenile to me but, come to think of it I might have had similar "fun" (read: stupid) ideas in my early 20s as well. I was in the AC thread all day (off & on) - the comments re: someone's sex life were initially presented vis a vis the potential for extortion (and given some of the less than pro-conservative remarks made by same, gave pause for thought). Things then got out of hand for a while and then self-corrected. I've seen AC's post today but: He's also edited "the smoking tape" and removed any pieces of the transcript. He still has links to where you can find said tape, but ... And Anne, my dear, you seem to get around just as much as I do LOL! You must get your butt out to AB soon.

Posted by: Candace at May 22, 2005 02:55 PM (R7nd+)

28 I have no idea how they could think this is fun, I think it's disgusting but the thought is that they get the control for their "hidden agenda" and the rest of the group either jumps in or leaves. I will never understand hackers, virus code writers, etc., all of this is the behaviour of individuals vying for attention and in need of a real hobby. Why stop discussion groups? Politics aside, if someone wants to disparage a group of people and stop productive dialogue (might get that hidden agenda myth dispelled!) than what better way than to take over the discussion(s) until things degenerate so badly that the whole thing is shut down? In AC's particular case there were likely 100's of people who were lurking just to get information outside of MSM, see what the other side was really like. As things started becoming too unruly and sounding hateful they likely took off left with the impression that the LIEberals are right and will not bother seeking out opposing opinion again. This is actually quite a clever tactic: no more discussion on AC's site, another outlet for reasonable dialogue gone, how many more to go? I only got the first part of the Joe Clark discussion (no details please!) and was busy for the rest of the evening. The original points of sexual preference being used for blackmail in days gone by was interesting, would not really surprise me. Having no idea what was written after that I can only conclude that some nasty stuff was posted giving a voice to wild speculation? Maybe not. Wouldn't that be something if AC decided to go left or keep his opinions to himself from now on, would be a loss. What I did in my youth for fun? OMG, please, I am blushing!! I could never be in politics, the scandals would keep the media busy for weeks, LOL! I am in need of a trip to Alberta, wonder what scandals WE could start?

Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at May 22, 2005 03:53 PM (glkWC)

29 Part of AC's explanation about why the comments were shut down, so my hunch as to why was at least partially right. The comments in question were vile. "I have suspended the comments, indefinitely. I know that's why most of you come here, and that this will mean a sharp decline in readership. But as the numbers have grown, the quality has declined. The comments have frankly gone to seed, overrun with western separatists, Bilderberg conspiracy theorists and various other cranks. Last night I spent several hours weeding out a quite disgusting thread speculating on the sexual preferences of various politicians, and the secret gay network that had supposedly infiltrated the Canadian government, and I have no wish to ever soil my hands that way again."

Posted by: Snowy at May 22, 2005 03:55 PM (6krEN)

30 I'll take your word for it snowy, 'nuf said. I hope that AC continues to be a voice of sanity in all this craziness.

Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at May 22, 2005 04:20 PM (glkWC)

31 Sorry, Snowy, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't right on why the comments were shut down because indeed you were. The loss of the comment section at AC's site cannot be understated. I've been impressed with the level of commentary and met a lot of new bloggers through his site. I do understand his reasons, though. Having to police trolls and such puts a sour wrinkle in writing a blog. Candace, thanks again. If I hadn't started worrying about the comments being gone I wouldn't have learned about the lawsuit. Anne, I too have adult children and won't disclose the oats I've sown (although I don't think it was as mean-spirited as writing viruses, hacking into sites or destroying forums.) I don't mind long comments, by the way, and enjoyed reading yours, and I thought it funny that we were crossing paths. John, I didn't even think to contact the Captain. I checked there early this morning to see if he knew anything about Coyne and never thought to advise him about all this. This whole thing started in the dead of night and I only realized a short while ago that it's been going on for about 12 hours.

Posted by: Debbye at May 22, 2005 04:41 PM (x0ejO)

32 Debbye. I didn't want to mention it as this is your post, so to speak. Let me know if you ever want to send an email that you may not want to send yourself for some reason. The way I've structured my life I'm pretty well untouchable. The Captain may want to follow this. Problem is there are so many stories like this in Canada right now that it's impossible to cover all of them. That's why we need a lot of good blogs like yours. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: John Crittenden at May 22, 2005 05:22 PM (cONYb)

33 Clearly the Liberals are nervous and making othes uneasy. I hope Andrew has all of his archives backed up and at a friend's place. I don't mind hearing of computers being hauled away in cases of children porn, but I would be very upset if anyone gets violated by Martinites for opinions and truths. Debby, you have a valuable asset here in these 423 pages of clear topical writing. Without your permission, but I'm sure you don't mind, I have gone through your pages and filled in my background on Adscam, security and your favorite project, the food for oil scandal. In these hours of effort here, you have two or three manuscripts. One is a handbook about Adscam and other sundrie scandals. Book two is a quick study about the Food for Oil fiasco. There are others too. All you have to do is sort out the posts and get them published. Delegate your troops to do that. It's money in the bank. Please do not get sidetracked. Those who depend on The US Gal in TO will shoot me. Seriously though, you should have these 423 valuable pages safely tucked away from your home. If misguided Martinites erase your drives by misguided court order, you will happily survive. 73s TonyGuitar

Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 22, 2005 09:04 PM (rmMzv)

34 I think that if the CPC want to leave their platform "unannounced" then that's what they should do. Don't forget: The Atlantic Accord - originally a CPC platform, then last election Martin said "me too" then was going to reneg on his promise (hence the lowering of the flags) until the Opposition, mainly CPC, forced his hand. And who forgot that? The maritime premiers, that's who. Gas tax for infrastructure - again, straight out of the CPC platform last year. Same story as the Accord. If the Libs keep stealing the good ideas and then take credit for them, nobody votes them out of office and we're STILL run by a gang of criminals. Instead, I propose we do the following: Take the Liberal "red book" from the Liberal site (you have to register, eeeeewwww!) and print it out. If you are in a riding currently held by a Liberal, phone your local CPC or NDP candidate and find out how to see what bills your Liberal MP voted against, particularly if they are voting against implementing campaign promises. (I'm in Screechin' Annie's riding, trust me when I tell you I'm motivated - I've sent an email to Rona Ambrose asking her the quickest/easiest way to do that...unfortunately I think it means slogging through eons of Hansard, but oh well.) Let me know if you are in the same boat as me and we can pool our info. Finally, does anyone have a clue how to go about setting up a 'secure' discussion site (i.e. one that not just anybody can jump in on - I wouldn't be surprised, based on suffering Anne's earlier comment, if the whole Joe Clark thing wasn't some liberal trying to accomplish...exactly what was accomplished).

Posted by: Candace at May 22, 2005 10:39 PM (R7nd+)

35 Ask Candace, she and I were there in the thick of it, I noticed the blog closed down about 3 AM. There are likely a number of reasons: - we were talkig about his legal issues - we were talkig about conspiracy in politics in Canada - then the subject of the 'gay trojan horse' in Canadian politics was raised and certain people's names were mentioned - having posted hundreds of times at Coyne's blog I know for a fact he is 'super sensitive' for some reason when a person's sexual preferences are mentioned - only he knows why?? Frankly, I do agree that things were getting out of control there... but not for the reasons that he would say.. some serious shyte was being discussed and it is not the best place to do it... real conservatives need a more private place to talk to each other.

Posted by: Brian Walsh at May 23, 2005 12:12 AM (vAI+5)

36 I have never set up a group but been a part of several. I know that MSN and Yahoo will let you host groups, probably many others. Except for an extremely skilled person no one should be able to get in without an invite. Some moderators are strict enough that nothing makes it to the message board without passing their eyes first, others are fairly open. From what I understand they are not that hard to set up, they may even be free of charge. Most of our laid off employees return on Tuesday. If I appear to be absent it only means that I am trying desperately to hang on to a business so that I can keep the LIEberals in the style to which they have come to expect.

Posted by: Anne (suffering in Ontario) at May 23, 2005 12:48 AM (glkWC)

37 Well Anne & Brian et al, I hope someone comes up with a workable plan soon. Please email me if necessary. Debbye, keep up the good work. The LAST thing we need is for blogs to shut down. Although lawsuits are good for that, and I'd be the first to comply.

Posted by: Candace at May 23, 2005 01:15 AM (R7nd+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

There is cause to believe that a recent column of Andrew Coyne's is what some find objectionable. If a journalist posing questions about a government official's assertions is cause for a libel suit then we are all in trouble.

This is Part 2 of that column, continued from Bruce's post and explanation here.

The Prime Minister's people do not deny that Mr. Murphy met with Mr. Grewal, or that it is his voice on the tape. Their defence is that it was Mr. Grewal who first approached them, and not the reverse. Oh, and that there was no deal. But how does it matter who first approached whom, so long as the the two ended up in the same room? And if there was no deal, why so much artful talking around it? How long does it take to say "No"?

What's clear, moreover, is that this was hardly an isolated event: Mr. Murphy speaks of similar discussions with several other Conservative MPs. And we know of one, in particular, with whom the discussions proved notably fruitful. Offering a Cabinet post to Belinda Stronach to induce her to vote with the government would not ordinarily be illegal, though it is certainly unethical -- and arguably unconstitutional, given the government's tenuous position in the House. But offering positions outside the House -- a Senate seat, a diplomatic posting -- as an inducement to someone to vote a certain way, or not vote a certain way, would plainly be against the law.

At the least, it would be conduct unbecoming a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

"A person can say, 'Look, I obviously abstained and created some issues' and then they can say, 'I'm thinking hard about what the right thing for my riding and the contribution I would like to make.'"

All of which is only the squalid terminus of a weeks-long effort at self-preservation the likes of which this country has never seen: from rewriting the budget three times in the space of a fortnight, to tossing billions of dollars at every passing province, to refusing to seek the immediate confidence of the House after last week's defeat, as precedent and convention require: the precedent and convention on which our Constitution vitally depends.

The Liberals have caused incalculable damage in the course of this scorched-earth campaign: to the treasury, to constitutional government, to our political culture. And, as it happens, to their own political fortunes, in the longer run. Before all this began, the Prime Minister remained a sympathetic figure to much of the public: the worst people said of him was that he was not cut out for politics.

No one would say that now. In recent polls, upwards of 60% of the public have said they believe Mr. Martin knew more about the sponsorship scandal than he has let on, that he would lie for political gain, and so on.

They may have won the day, but they have done so at the expense of severely tarnishing their "brand" -- that is, not just as Liberals, but as the Liberals who aren't those other Liberals, whose reputation is beyond repair.

They may come to regret this victory before long.

"In advance of that explicit discussions about Senate, not Senate I don't think are very helpful and I don't think can be had in advance of an abstention tomorrow."

"You can easily say, if you don't like, you can stay home or stay back where you are or if you do like we can make an arrangement that allows you to move."

"It's much like Belinda, where there is a third party who is independent of both sides. So you didn't approach. We didn't approach...."

For a refresher course on this controversy, read Andrew's posts here and here.

13:41 - Coyne speaks! It appears he doesn't yet realize how worried we all were. He explains why he dropped comments but that doesn't actually concern this post except inasmuch as it was their suspension that led to learning about the threatened legal action.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:12 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 693 words, total size 4 kb.

May 22 - I'm too tired and cranky to write reasonably about this so I'll let it speak for itself: Amnesty International says U.S. war dodger would be prisoner of conscience

TORONTO (CP) - Prominent human-rights group Amnesty International has declared that it will adopt a young American war dodger as a "prisoner of conscience" if Canada deports him to the United States and he ends up in jail.

Amnesty says it considers Jeremy Hinzman a legitimate conscientious objector to the war in Iraq, even though Canadian immigration authorities have decided otherwise.

Hinzman, 26, fled to Canada in search of asylum just days before his Airborne Division unit was deployed to Iraq to fight in a war he considered illegal under international law, one in which he feared he would be forced to commit atrocities.

His refugee claim was rejected in March by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and now Hinzman, who has filed a Federal Court challenge to the ruling in hopes of staving off deportation, faces a court-martial in the U.S. and up to five years in jail.

In a decision taken at Amnesty's international office in London, the organization said it considered Hinzman "to have a genuine conscientious objection" to serving as a combatant in Iraq.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:44 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

May 22 - Linda Williamson asks in today's Toronto Sun Is it ever acceptable to call a woman a whore? which is the latest word on the storm that ensued after some male politicians used the W word in connection with Belinda Stronach.

She makes a very convincing case that if the word fits, etc., and makes several other good points about the long association of politics with whoring, gender quotas (or the lack of them) and the upside-down double-standard that passes for integrity these days.

Marzi wrote a post earlier this week that also proved conclusively that BS is a whore.

But I would suggest that we really shouldn't use the "W" word when we're talking about a female. It's sexist and might, you know, lower her self esteem.

I think it better that we keep it dignified and use more acceptable words like harlot, strumpet, Jezebel, hooker, sporting woman, courtesan, Delilah, Cyprian, hetarata, drab, fallen woman, painted woman, Paphian, soiled dove, slut, scarlet woman, tart, trollop, floozy, chippie, harridan, streetwalker, or, my personal favourites, hoochie-koochie girl and woman of easy virtue.

What nobody seems to remember with all the kerfuffle over the "W" word is that it is far, far worse to be deemed a treacherous, back-stabbing, self-aggrandizing betrayer than a whore. After all, the lowest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors, not whores:

Dante next follows Virgil into Judecca, the Fourth Ring of the Ninth Circle of Hell and the lowest depth. Here, those who betrayed their benefactors spend eternity in complete icy submersion.
A huge, mist-shrouded form lurks ahead, and Dante approaches it. It is the three-headed giant Lucifer, plunged waist-deep into the ice. His body pierces the center of the Earth, where he fell when God hurled him down from Heaven. Each of LuciferÂ’s mouths chews one of historyÂ’s three greatest sinners: Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and Cassius and Brutus, the betrayers of Julius Caesar.

(Link via Neale News.)

Posted by: Debbye at 03:40 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 3 kb.

May 22 - New Mark Steyn column in the Chicago Sun-Times on the fall-out from that Newsweek article and the opportunistic manipulation of it by Imran Khan: Cricket star knows how to fire up fanatics.

Steyn calls Imran Khan, who wants to be involved in Pakistan politics, an opportunist:

So, having demonstrated little previous interest in the preoccupations of the Muslim street, Imran then began pandering to it. I doubt whether he personally cared about that Newsweek story one way or the other, but he's an opportunist and that's why he went out of his way to incite his excitable followers.

It's not the mobs, so much as the determination of the elites to keep their peoples in a state of ignorance. The most educationally repressive form of Islam, for example, is funded and promoted by Saudi princes who, though not as handsome as Imran, also spend a lot of time in the West -- gambling, drinking, womanizing and indulging other tastes that even the wildest night on the tiles in Riyadh just can't sate. Whereas most advanced societies believe that an educated population is vital to the national interest, many Muslim elites seem to have concluded than an uneducated population is actually far more useful. And, when you look at Saudi funding of radical madrassahs in hitherto moderate Muslim regions from the Balkans to Indonesia, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they're having great success de-educating hitherto relatively savvy parts of the world.

They've cried Wolf! so often that a true story of wrong-doing may well be ignored, and that endangers our country. That's the betrayal, and that's what they don't get.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

May 22 - My bad; I usually poise the mouse over commenters' names to see if they have blogs but don't keep re-checking so missed that Dave J. was writing at It Comes in Pints?.

He's written a very interesting prognosis about The End of Canada? and how the different regions would fare.

It's an important read because the subject is no longer speculative. It's surprising that so many, including me, are unsurprised that so many minds are thinking along these lines. When the Wicked Witch of Aurora (nice one, Damian!) claimed she was slithering over to the Liberals to protest the alliance between the Bloc and the Conservative Party jaws dropped because those following reactions in Quebec over the revelations of the Gomery Inquiry knew that the separatist cause had been re-ignited as a direct result of the revealed corruption and fraud shamelessly conducted by the federal and Quebec wing of the Liberal Party.

Two commenters over at an old post at Captain's Quarters humourously suggested that Canada could be saved if the separatists in Quebec and Alberta joined forces to eject Ontario ... the joke is that they weren't entirely wrong.

The Liberals hope that time will ease the outrage, but they have overlooked one critical fact: you can dampen the fire but that don't mean the embers go out. Any decent psychologist can tell you that it's the things we repress that come back to haunt us, and even if the current outrage is reduced to a simmering state it won't disappear but, like Athena, will spring fully grown.

Oh Canada, having failed to protect those things that made you great you are past parody and now on the edge of dissolution.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:17 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

I read the news today, oh boy ...

I really did try to write something early this morning, but writing "Dayum, I'm tired" was all I could come up with.

A good day's sleep and being on the verge of this Victoria Day weekend kind of rejuvenates me, and I can't help feeling that some good things have come out of these last two weeks.

The biggest one is that the contention that Canadian politics are boring has been shot down. What a ride! We've watched more live House sessions these past weeks than ever, and have been educated about procedures and precedents in Westminster-style Parliaments.

I'm running late for work (what else is new?) but I suddenly feel optimistic: positions have hardened, and I don't think the Grits are calling the tune right now. They may control Parliament, but they gave up the last shred of decency and integrity to gain it, and that is something that will be tickling voters in the backs of their minds.

I'm going to be thinking along the lines of "where do we go from here" rather than mope about what has happened because I'm not a whiny Democrat baby.

Guts. Principles. Program as opposed to agenda.

Buck up, friends. We have only just entered the fray.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:15 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

May 19 - 153-152: the Speaker of the House cast the deciding vote which broke the 152-152 tie and allowed the Liberals to survive budget vote and continue their corrupt rule over this diminished country.

CTV puts a curious spin on it:

Prime Minister Paul Martin put his 11-month-old Liberal minority government to the test today, and passed.

Independents Chuck Cadman and David Kilgour split their votes, the latter voting against the budget amendment that the Liberals drew up to secure NDP votes.

The tie vote highlights the damage Belinda Stronach's defection cost this country, and may have set off events that could see it disintegrate.

This isn't an episode of Dallas where the irascible J.R. pulls shady maneuvers to get what he wants - that is fiction, and viewers knew that plot twists didn't affect their lives or pocketbooks. This was a "test" that addressed the leadership of a country in crisis, and that they survived that test basically by cheating is hardly reason to celebrate.

Canada has just entered a period of unknown unknowns and although an election would not have solved everything, it would have had the effect of applying a bandage over an open wound which, as it appears it will be left untended, will deepen the cynicism and apathy which afflicts this country.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:11 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

May 19 - Stronach said he supported her decision, but Mulroney denies backing party switch.

She's lying like a Liberal already.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:18 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

May 19 - Bill Whittle's new essay Sanctuary Part I and Part II are up!

Here’s my thesis: Civilizations fall because they become so successful that their citizens become, over many generations of increasing security and prosperity, further and further away from the reality of the human condition. The quest for “better” becomes so successful that after a few generations of hard work and ingenuity we have nothing left but the quest for “perfect.” More and more effort produces fewer and smaller results, because the quest for perfection is asymptotic. Perfection is unattainable.

[...]

Why then, do so many people – most of them on the far left – so fundamentally hate humanity?

[...]

So why -- someone? anyone? – why do otherwise intelligent and educated people so despise and detest American society, which has achieved more in the way of individual rights, science, arts, medicine, diversity, cooperation and prosperity than any other in history? Why would they oppose such a society when it is trying to bring these blessings to people who have spent thirty years cowering in dark places, fearful of letting the slightest word slip, or betraying their entire family with an askew glance or unguarded moment? Why would someone so viciously oppose freeing a People who have lived for a generation in total, abject fear?

ItÂ’s because they have never lived it. That is what I mean when I say reality has left their building. How many people would be opposing the war in Iraq if they had to watch, actually witness, three or four hundred thousand people being shot in the head in front of their families? At the rate of one life taken every single second, with one unique and irreplaceable person being extinguished every tick of the 60 Minutes stopwatch, going without sleep or rest, you would be at it for three and a half days. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Every face unique, every one someoneÂ’s son or mother or precious grandchild. Bang. Bang. Bang. All night and all day, every second for three and a half days. How long to wipe out your entire family? Four seconds? Eight? Thirteen? We have found that many in Iraq, more will follow, believe me.

How many children – four or five year old boys and girls – do you need to see raped in front of you before you change your mind about Iraq? Fifty? Fifty thousand? Will that make a dent in your stainless steel belief system? How many cries for mercy in the muffled corridors of prison basements? Ten thousand? Ten times ten thousand? They were there. They happened.

They just didnÂ’t happen to you.

Better brew a pot.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.