June 16 - The Judge is Angry:

MONTREAL - First, it was Jean Chretien taking John Gomery to court. Now, Justice Gomery is taking Paul Martin to court.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:00 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

June 16 - Audit targets firearm registry:

OTTAWA -- Costs for the controversial gun registry program could continue to "spiral out of control" unless the government takes steps to curb spending, an external audit warns.

The financial report compiled by Hill and Knowlton for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, obtained under Access to Information by Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz, recommends the government shift the Canada Firearms Centre to another larger department to wrestle down costs.

Posted by: Debbye at 11:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

June 16 - My question about the libel suit against David Frum has been answered - in spades. Many thanks to Candace for finding this discussion thread on the Frum column and for digging up an older item on Adscam-related lawsuits.

I'll state this up front: I believe it is up to bloggers to stand by and defend these commentators. It pisses me off beyond reason that their colleagues are not doing so, but things are what they are in Canada these days and it won't be the first time bloggers were trailblazers.

Frum wrote he has been served with papers accusing him of libel.

There are confirmed reports that National Post columnist Andrew Coyne and reporter Laurent Soumis of the Journal de Montreal have also been served and, although I have yet to find confirmation, CTV's Mike Duffy and Warren Kinsella may also have been served. (Note that I have no way of ascertaining if these four as the ones to which Frum was referring and there are in fact good reason to doubt this is the case.)

Of necessity this is a fairly long post so click on the extended entry for more, but I'm putting Kate's opening on this side of the post because she tears a deservedly giant strip off the feckless Canadian media:

In any sane democratic country, a slap suit against an opinion columnist by a government operative would provoke outrage and non-stop editorials in the mainstream press. The item would be leading the newscasts, with punditry convening soberly on our TV screens. Reporter scrums would pepper government leaders to explain their actions in curtailling that most hallowed (in their eyes) of all freedoms - freedom of the press.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1379 words, total size 11 kb.

May 16 - UN group condemns Canada:

OTTAWA (CP) - A UN committee says it is gravely concerned about Canada's system of jailing suspected terrorists without trial using national security certificates.

The UN committee on arbitrary detention, which is visiting Canada at the federal government's invitation, said persons detained under security certificates are denied the right to a fair hearing.

[...]

The committee noted that all four of the people currently detained under security certificates are Arab Muslims, and one of them has been detained for five years.

All four of the suspects now in detention argue they face a risk of torture if returned to their homelands.

But everything happens in threes, right? So of course it's only now being reported that last February yet another member of the Khadr family had come under scrutiny. This latest involved the seizure of Zaynab Khadr's laptop when she landed at Pearson Airport after a trip to Pakistan. The contents of her laptop allegedly included bin Laden tape clips calling for - what else? the murder of Americans. She says she didn't know that the clips and some songs - including one titled "I Am A Terrorist" - were on her computer.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

June 16 - David Frum's A Scandal So Immense is a concise description of events that lead to the political crisis in Canada. He gives just the facts, as they say, and the accumulative impact is immense when viewed in the whole.

By the way, I didn't realize before I read this item that David Frum was among at least five people who have been served with libel papers:

There is though one warning I'd better immediately deliver to readers: Along with at least four other public commentators, I have recently been served with libel papers by a leading figure in this story. ..

So even if I'm only the latest in an entire parade of people who have said so, I think it worthwhile to go on record and state that this is outrageous. These suits may well be nuisance suits, but, if only by their stifling effect, they constitute an explicit threat to press freedoms and freedom of speech.

Back to the main subject, Frum touches on some key points over this recent period. On corruption:

Some of that money ended up in the pockets of influential Liberals, allegedly including the brother of former prime minister Jean Chretien. Some was kicked back to the Liberal party and its campaign workers. The Gomery inquiry has also revealed a disturbing nexus--that's a word to which no lawyer can object--between senior figures in the Liberal party and organized crime.

Then Judge Gomery took his hearings onto cable TV. Night after night, Canadians heard firsthand stories of tens of thousands of dollars in cash left in envelopes on restaurant tables, of alleged Mafia figures giving orders to party chairmen, of kickbacks, bribes, and fraud. ..

Paul Martin has always benefited immensely from his reputation as the Mr. Clean of the Liberal party. ..

The first thing he had to do was trample on Canada's constitutional traditions. ..

[...]

And then Canadians learned the reason why: Over the period that the Martin government had been losing vote after vote in the House, it had been secretly negotiating with the disappointed loser of the Conservative party's 2004 leadership contest, Belinda Stronach, the billionaire heiress to an auto-parts and land-development fortune.

Mark Steyn tells of reading The Globe and Mail on a recent airplane flight. He's not overly complimentary. Then he spies a video monitor which instructs “To begin, press EXIT.”

From Exit strategy by Mark Steyn:

The Liberal Party of Canada” isn’t the catchiest name for a Quebec biker gang. .. it’s essentially engaged in the same activities as the other biker gangs: the Grits launder money; they enforce a ruthless code of omerta when fainthearted minions threaten to squeal; they threaten to whack their enemies; they keep enough cash on hand in small bills of non-sequential serial numbers to be able to deliver suitcases with a couple hundred grand hither and yon; and they sluice just enough of the folding stuff around law enforcement agencies to be assured of co-operation. The Mounties’ Musical Ride received $3 million from the Adscam funds, but, alas, the RCMP paperwork relating to this generous subsidy has been, in keeping with time-honoured Liberal book-keeping practices, “inadvertently lost.”

Posted by: Debbye at 07:24 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 639 words, total size 4 kb.

June 15 - Whether they are altered, edited, or doctored, the Grewal tapes are still controversial.

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe seems to believe the contents of the tape are genuine, and says the Liberals are lying:

Duceppe said the prime minister has systematically refused to answer questions about when he became aware of backroom discussions with Tory MP Gurmant Grewal.

"When did he know? Did Paul Martin participate in a criminal act?" Duceppe said yesterday outside Parliament.

"He refuses to answer. And it's been a while. We're getting tired of being lied to, right in our face (by Liberals). "They're lying in the House. They're lying to the public."

Top Liberals were heard on tape discussing career opportunities with Grewal in exchange for missing a May 19 confidence vote.

The opposition insists the talks with Grewal were possible violations of anti-corruption provisions in the Criminal Code.

Martin spokesman Scott Reid said the Bloc leader is basing false allegations on doctored tapes.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

June 15 - If you find this headline shocking then you clearly haven't been paying attention: Canadians see Bush, bin Laden as national security threats. But wait: the facts of the story are far more interesting than it first appears for reasons which, strangely enough, are not explored in the article:

TORONTO -- Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.

The 1,500 people contacted for the poll, conducted last February for the Department of National Defence, listed "International Organized Crime" as the top danger, with 38 per cent ranking it as a great threat to security concern and another 50 per cent listing it as moderate.

But tied for second in the poll were "U.S. Foreign Policy" and "Terrorism," with 37 per cent rating it a great risk. Just behind those worries came "Climate Change and Global Warming." (Emphasis added)

Experts said the results reflected a continuing "schizophrenia" in the Canadian public's attitudes towards defence -- still worried about international terrorism even three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, but also concerned about the power and aggressive policies of the Americans.

The poll, by Ekos Research Associates Inc., surveyed Canadians' attitudes towards a wide range of defence, military and national security issues, part of an annual public opinion polling process by the Department of National Defence.

It was considered accurate within 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Most of those contacted for the poll had "great confidence" in the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to natural disasters in Canada, but only 25 per cent felt the same way about how our military would handle a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.

The poll suggested other security concerns preying at the public's mind include "Weapons of Mass Destruction," listed as a great danger by 30 per cent of those surveyed, and "Potential Weaponization of Space," which 26 per cent of those polled found a great concern.

Health threats, such as the SARS outbreak of 2003, nuclear threats, natural disasters and countries in turmoil, such as Sudan or Haiti, were the least worrisome threats according to the poll.

Still, I find it odd that organized crime would rate as a higher cause of concern than U.S. foreign policy and terrorism, unless (and this is a long shot) respondents have take the "Librano" definition to heart, in which case the poll results may be more interesting than the article lets on.

14:22: Via Neale News, according to the latest Angus Reid Consultants poll, health care is the top concern of Canadians followed by poor government and leadership issues.

International issues / War / Peace are way at the bottom at 2%, tied with Unemployment, Same sex marriage and Crime / law and order.

Don't you just love polls?

Posted by: Debbye at 05:54 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.

June 15 - Canada: Armed Agents Needed on U.S. Border:

While U.S. Border Patrol agents along the frontier are armed, officers of the Canada Border Services Agency are not allowed to carry firearms. They currently are instructed to call the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or local police if they run into a threat and, as officers testified before the committee, that help is often extremely slow in coming.

"The committee has reluctantly come to the conclusion that if the federal government is not willing or able to provide a constant police presence at Canada's border crossings, current border inspectors must be given the option of carrying firearms," the report says. (Emphasis added)

Another proposal calls for Canada to allow up to $2,000 in duty-free goods from the United States by 2010, freeing up customs agents to focus on potential threats to security rather than acting as tax collectors.

"Canada needs a system within which personnel on the crossings are border officers first and clerks second — the reverse of the current situation," the report says. "Raising personal exemptions for travelers will help border officers better direct their attention to border security rather than revenue collection." (Emphasis added)

Posted by: Debbye at 02:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

June 12 - Does one really have to be a rocket scientist to see the blindingly obvious? I can well believe that Tory support plummets because the poll (surprise, surpise) focused attention on a secondary issue.

Decima also asked the respondents to its poll, which is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20, to indicate whose version of events they believed in the Grewal affair. Specifically, they were asked who they believed initiated the discussions about Mr. Grewal crossing the floor.

About 25 per cent sided with the Liberals, who said the Conservative MP initiated the conversation, compared with 23 per cent siding with Mr. Grewal, who said he was called by the Liberals.

Who made the first overture is not the point; what is alarming is that discussions were held with someone who is supposedly under investigation for misconduct in an immigration matter, and the final discussion on the tapes were held in Grewal's office, which means that Tim Murphy was pursuing the discussions and was free to leave at any point.

Although we often refer to Canada as a one-party state, one thing we overlook is that, in a one-party state, the only way to "get ahead" is to be a member of that party.

Perhaps that's why Benoit Corbeil's allegations that lawyers routinely traded "volunteering" for Liberal party candidates in return for bench appointments were less shocking than they should have been because we secretly suspected that this was indeed the case and that the appointments were due less to competency than to political connections.

The ethical crisis in Canada lies not so much with the political parties and their elites as with the Canadian (or Ontarian) electorate which has chosen to accept the corruption and patronage appointments as "business as usual" and thus admitted, in effect, that this is the best Canada can ever be.

There is a direct correlations between a country's ideals and how strenuously they attempt to achieve those ideals. When, in the name of sophistication, the citizens of a country fail to strive for honesty and ethics in government, they thereby bequeath to their children mediocrity. That is not a legacy they of which can be proud.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:50 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Debbie,how are you holding up? Fine I hope.

Posted by: Dex at June 12, 2005 10:00 PM (kO17P)

2 Ref the 25% for the liberals vs 23%, keep in mind the last US election when that guy from Newsweek(?) said they were responsible for 15% of Kerry's votes. IOW, had the media not been biased, Kerry would have been slaughtered instead of just beaten. Canada doesn't exactly have an unbiased media - Liberals are good, always good, remember?

Posted by: Jay at June 12, 2005 10:18 PM (PuNh2)

3 Correction: 15 points, not 15 percent. (I'm so stupid! - whimper!)

Posted by: Jay at June 12, 2005 10:19 PM (PuNh2)

4 It would be nice if Canadians stopped popping off about the sins of the rest of the world for a time in light of the political squalor that has enveloped their government. And I think we can lay the "Canadians are decent" thing to rest for a good long while. The country appears to be governed like a banana republic.

Posted by: Banjo at June 12, 2005 10:28 PM (EXsjY)

5 Ah, but nobody accepts a bribe more graciously and politely than a Canadian!

Posted by: Jay at June 12, 2005 11:25 PM (PuNh2)

6 Someone Blogged about having a nightmare where Martin is caught handing over suitcases of money and renting boytoys and the Liberals still poll about six points higher then the CPC in Ontario.,....I'm sure you read it sometime.It's just that I don't remember who wrote it right now

Posted by: big al at June 13, 2005 12:50 AM (Ol/Hq)

7 electorate which has chosen to accept the corruption and patronage appointments as "business as usual" and thus admitted, in effect, that this is the best Canada can ever be. I submit that this electorate has admitted that the Canada of four decades ago (before corruption became business as usual) is the best it could ever be.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at June 13, 2005 10:49 AM (pPVQ0)

8 The facts are simple, Grewal or someone in Harper's office altered the tapes to make the Liberals look bad and the Conservatives look good. For a party always screaming about ethics, it's no surprise Canadians were disappointed when they found out the Tories don't have any either.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 11:36 AM (qE9S5)

9 Speaking about an "ethical crisis" debbie, you might want to shine your beacon of outrage on your OWN country. A place where hundreds of men have been incarcerated (Guantanamo)for years without trial and without benefit of international jurispridence. Your governemnt has sought to create an end run around guarantees of fundamental rights enshrined in your Constitution and universally accepted agreements such as the Geneva Conventions. You can't on the one hand preach democracy and on the other imprison people without charge. Now THAT'S what I call an "ethical crisis"...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 11:46 AM (qE9S5)

10 "... its poll, which is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20..." It's tangential, but I find it interestingly honest that the pollster admits the margin of error is not ALWAYS correct. In a statistically significant and truly random sample, you will still always have about a five percent chance of a "rogue poll" that is beyond the margin of error in its failure to reflect the population. That's why aggregated polling trends are more accurate than individual polls.

Posted by: Dave J at June 13, 2005 12:31 PM (CYpG7)

11 Flanstein says: "The facts are simple, Grewal or someone in Harper's office altered the tapes to make the Liberals look bad and the Conservatives look good." Sorry to trouble you with such trivial requests, Flanstein, but what proof do you have to support your assertion that someone in Harper's office altered the Grewal tapes? Also, on the subject of Gitmo, the fundamental rights accorded by the U.S. Constitution apply to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals, especially not enemy combatants. Also, the Geneva Convention applies to those who themselves adhere to the Geneva Convention, namely those who wear their country's uniform in battle. It does not apply to bloodthirsty terrorists who observe no rules whatsoever and who hack the heads off those they capture.

Posted by: MSD at June 13, 2005 01:18 PM (tHqp5)

12 Ok, for the next person who decided to quote this decima poll as a holy grail, here we go.... http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/050510E.pdf This is from May 7 released from Ipsos-Ried http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2659 And look there, they have the Liberals in a dead heat. And on and on it goes....These polls are nothing more than manipulations as they have always been.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2005 01:30 PM (yVXTt)

13 MSD, "Sorry to trouble you with such trivial requests, Flanstein, but what proof do you have to support your assertion that someone in Harper's office altered the Grewal tapes?" I never said that, I said: "Grewal or someone in Harper's office altered the tapes. The tapes have been altered - who do you think did it? "Also, the Geneva Convention applies to those who themselves adhere to the Geneva Convention, namely those who wear their country's uniform in battle." Weasel words. When civilized men start acting like uncivilized men - as is the case with the disgrace known as Gitmo - only bad things can befall them. The reason our culture is superior to islam is the rules we have put into place to govern ourselves. If these people are guilty, then charge them and make them face the rule of law. Right now the Americans are acting like the barbarians they seek to defeat.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 01:56 PM (qE9S5)

14 Your point about ethics residing as much with Canadian people as with Govt. is correct. 1938 is when Germans, (an intelligent group), were slow to protest unfair and wrong excesses by Hitler. Soon Hitler had a * youth corps*, walking the streets in brown uniforms with black armbands and a sidearm. Black = death, not very subtle. They began to lodge bullets in the heads of those who had *wrong* thoughts. Uh - uh, too late for action now. Not likely here, admitted. However, the lesson is do not dither. Do not *wait and hope*. Do press for action. Cleanup should have started when Martin gave in to NDP blackmail trade to cheat the Non-confidence vote. Add to that the seat given to Ms. Stronach as a bribe for her vote. Four hours of vote barter on tape. This leads to the need for holding demonstrations in front of the Gov. General's mansion, calling for her to do the right thing. Better hurry, She has the place up for sale. She's smart. One step ahead..eh?3s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 13, 2005 01:57 PM (rmMzv)

15 Well, Flanstein, I think we need to assume until we have proof otherwise that Grewal altered the tapes himself or had them altered himself. There's no proof at present that I know of that this was done with the approval of Mr. Harper or his office, or executed by that office itself. As far as Gitmo is concerned, your own words betray an inability to tell the difference between a law enforcement operation and a military operation (that's a war). As much as you and people like you might like to frame the war against Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement operation, that isn't how it's being fought, and for good reason. Open your history books and read up on any conflict that has pitted civilization against barbarism. Enemy prisoners of war are not the same as citizens arrested for breaking the law. They have never been, nor will ever be, treated the same way. I challenge you to cite another conflict where POWs were treated with more civility than those being held at Gitmo. On second thought, forget the history. Just compare the treatment of Gitmo prisoners with American soldiers and civilians who have fallen into the hands of the enemy. Then tell me which side is the civilized one and which one isn't. Oh, and which side you'd rather be captured by.

Posted by: MSD at June 13, 2005 02:29 PM (tHqp5)

16 MSD, Somebody in the conservative party altered those tapes. If you feel better pointing the finger at conservative Grewal, as opposed to conservative Harper, then that's up to you. As to Gitmo, those prisioners incarcerated there are not POW's - if they were - they would be under the auspices of the Geneva Convention. As the US has refused to comply with international law, the men have been denied their legal rights under the Geneva Convention. As long as the prisoners never touch US soil - and US courts do not consider the Cuban base to be part of the US - they are also denied the rights guaranteed to criminals under the US constitution, such as a presumption of innocence and a trial by jury. Nations can't make the rules up as they go along. Why do you think they are being held outside of American territory? Why doesn't the American government want to hold islamic POWs under the same rules they held nazi POWs? If these are bad guys (and I have no doubt they are) then set up a POW camp INSIDE the US and under the accord of international law. Gitmo is a disgrace to those of us who support the war against the international Jihad. Gitmo makes the US look bad in the eyes of the world. Finally, Gitmo is a great propaganda tool for the islamic thugs that want to bring sharia to your neighborhood and mine. It needs to be closed.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 13, 2005 04:36 PM (qE9S5)

17 ick...trolls

Posted by: Candace at June 13, 2005 05:30 PM (R7nd+)

18 "...the fundamental rights accorded by the U.S. Constitution apply to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals..." Sorry to have side with Flanstein on this one point, but that's just simply incorrect. Where the US Constitution means citizens, it says "citizens;" elsewhere it says "persons." And most of the time its fundamental rights provisions simply act as a blanket check on governmental action, not "according" or "granting" rights to specific groups. However... "As to Gitmo, those prisioners incarcerated there are not POW's - if they were - they would be under the auspices of the Geneva Convention." They're not treated as POW's because they don't meet the Geneva Convention's own definition of those to whom it applies. Do they wear uniforms, or insignia visible at a distance? Do they carry their weapons OPENLY? Are they acting on behalf of a party to the Convention (given that only three countries ever recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan)? Answer, no. International law has always allowed spies, saboteurs and pirates to be summarily executed by anyone, not accorded the dignities of a lawful combatant. The US chooses not to do so.

Posted by: Dave J at June 13, 2005 06:30 PM (ZKuUj)

19 Yes but, but, ..Trolls are interesting too, when they are not slingin' processed hay at each other. eh? 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 13, 2005 06:33 PM (rmMzv)

20 Not to mention that as soon as one side ignores Geneva, the other side has no obligation to abide by it (that's according to the GC). I think as far as the Constitution referring to "persons" rather than "citizens" that may have been a matter of protecting visitors of whatever sort. It certainly doesn't apply to murderers captured in a foreign country. Or if you think the US Constitution applies everywhere, maybe the US should invade Canada to restore the Canadian people's US Constitutional rights?

Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 06:38 PM (PuNh2)

21 Jay has answered Dave J.'s first objection correctly. The U.S. Constitution does not accord rights to non-citizen terrorists captured outside the U.S. Period. We're not talking about Canadian tourists here. Ah, Feinstein, you moonbats are all the same: you're first rate at advertising your self-righteous indignation when it comes to America's transgressions, real or imagined. Yet you're utterly incapable of engaging with the substance of an argument. You ignore any fact that doesn't fit within your obsessively-compulsive anti-American world view. Regarding the Grewal tapes, it makes a big difference if Grewal altered the tapes himself versus whether they were altered with the knowledge of the leader of the Conservative Party or the "party" as a whole. So until we know who specifically did what, it's best to stop tarring the party and its leadership with the brush of speculation. We know Grewal's ethics are questionable, and we certainly know Paul Martin's ethics are non-existent. Also, you certainly need a history lesson when it comes to prisoners-of-war. As Dave J. has explained again, the prisoners at Gitmo don't fall under the Geneva Convention because they don't meet its criteria and don't abide by it themselves. Also, Nazi POWs captured in Europe weren't transported to US soil for imprisonment. That would have been folly; as it would be folly to bring the terrorists at Gitmo to the U.S. today. The Nazi leadership were tried and executed at Nuremburg; other figures were tried on the home soil of the countries where they committed their war crimes. As far as "Islamic thugs that want to bring sharia to your neighborhood", when Bush does close Gitmo how about releasing them all into your neighborhood?

Posted by: MSD at June 13, 2005 08:47 PM (tHqp5)

22 "That is not a legacy they of which can be proud." But, it's so comfy!

Posted by: keith at June 13, 2005 09:08 PM (HRjgG)

23 Please forgive minor off topic news question. News: Today June 13,2005 6:00pm CBC Radio1 Vancouver. Guite states boxes of Govt. files secretly stored in his basement are his personal private property. His lawyer pleads *Fishing expedition* 7:00pm CBC Radio1 news (story vanished-poof!) Please, anyone else know of this? Honest, this is not lame humour. Heard at 6pm. Is this my first hallucination? 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 13, 2005 10:43 PM (rmMzv)

24 "It certainly doesn't apply to murderers captured in a foreign country." I never said it did. You were the one making the blanket statement that it ONLY applies to US citizens. But the US Constitution controls the US government (and indirectly through the 14th Amendment, the states) wherever it acts. Now, in some cases the actual extent of restraint imposed that may be zero, but that's not because it doesn't apply, but rather because applying doesn't afford any protection. I hope that's somewhat clear. What's a different matter is the question of what legal remedy someone outside the US has against the US government for supposedly unlawful acts. I would suggest that that's typically none, because the statute creating the federal trial courts defines the territorial jurisdiction of each district and none of them extends outside US territory. Maybe you could try the US Court of Claims, but I don't know if the Federal Tort Claims Act gives it extraterritorial jurisdiction either, and I tend to doubt it.

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 01:39 AM (ZKuUj)

25 Found it; http:// www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n061 Gomery also ordered former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano to produce a list of documents held by National Archives concearning correspondence, including 40 boxes in the basement of his Montreal home. 73s TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 14, 2005 03:59 AM (rmMzv)

26 MSD et al, How amusing that you refer to folks that disagree with you as moonbats, while at the same time justifying to your inner fascist the endless incarceration, without trial, of POWs. History will prove that gitmo was wrong - fortunately, it's just a matter of time before civilized people do the right thing. Sadly, you wouldn't know civilized if it bit you on your white-wing derrier...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 08:10 AM (qE9S5)

27 I wouldn't call them POWs, they're really a new category. But "endless incarceration" is what a POW normally faces. A pilot gets shot down over Germany in 1942, becomes a POW - is he tried and given a sentence? No. He's locked up for what may be 5, 10, 20 years or life. He doesn't know. He's there at least until the war is over, possibly longer depending on what side wins.

Posted by: Jay at June 14, 2005 08:37 AM (PuNh2)

28 Dave J, I concede your point about the US Constitution. As a blanket statement taken out of context, what I said was indeed wrong. However, I was speaking within the context of terrorists captured abroad, like those held at Gitmo, and failed to make that qualification clearly. Thanks for being so diligent. I am always grateful to be proven wrong by someone who is capable of dealing with the specifics of an argument.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 08:53 AM (tHqp5)

29 Jay, Normally, the POW knows he is going to be let out when the war ends. Since this is not a war like any other, when is the war against terrorism going to end? Do these men spend the rest of their lives living in cages without due process? Are they ALL guilty?

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 09:24 AM (qE9S5)

30 Nealenews: Mounties discover "Al Qaeda" cache

Posted by: maz2 at June 14, 2005 10:54 AM (TISxe)

31 "Are they ALL guilty?" Wait a second. I thought a second ago you were saying they should be treated as POW's. POW's aren't "guilty" of a crime as the basis for their (yes, indefinite) detention. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 01:14 PM (ZKuUj)

32 The left wants them to have the rights of a POW without their qualifying. The Geneva Convention should apply, even tho none of them complied with it. Give them that and they'll be demanding they get all the rights provided by the Constitution. Including the "right" to vote for Kerry or Hillary in the next election. Tho I suppose it's possible they could then demand one of the detainees actually get elected.

Posted by: Jay at June 14, 2005 02:46 PM (PuNh2)

33 "Wait a second. I thought a second ago you were saying they should be treated as POW's. POW's aren't "guilty" of a crime as the basis for their (yes, indefinite) detention. You can't have it both ways." If your not going to treat them like POWs, then treat them like criminals. Either way, they are entitled to the benefits of some sort of jurisprudence. Locking them away in a foreign country (because you are afraid of your own Constitution)and telling the world that they fall under no national or international law is wrong and immoral. Most right-thinking people around the world agree with me. Most fascists do not...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 02:59 PM (qE9S5)

34 The most worrisome thing about gitmo is the justification behind allowing it. The supporters say the prisoners aren't POWs and shouldn't be protected by the GC, or the constitution doesn't apply because of such and such. As right as they may be, the bothersome thing is that they've actively searched for ways to circumvent the GC and the Constitution and whatever other protection civilized man has codified. So overzealous are they in defending gitmo by finding loopholes that they lose sight of the purpose of said documents. How did these documents become the enemy? Why are the gitmo defenders not holding the US up to a higher standard? Are more precisely, why don't they want to?

Posted by: Sean at June 14, 2005 04:12 PM (QbG17)

35 You don't give up do you, Flanstein? First off, another history lesson. Fascists were just another variety of wacko totalitarian control-freaks who thought they could solve their problems through a massive state-enforced program of social engineering. That puts them firmly in the leftist camp along with communists, socialists and others who just can't seem to leave other people alone. As far as being afraid of the Constitution, in a way you have a point. The Islamists have learned very quickly how to exploit the openness of Western society, including using our legal system to their advantage. And they have played the Western mainstream press like a fiddle, not to mention the America-hating loony left from which they do most of their recruiting. Giving imprisoned terrorists access to domestic legal proceedings not only would have no precedent within a wartime context but would be pure folly. When you think of the millions who were imprisoned, tortured, and killed in the death camps and (real) gulags of 20th century totalitarian Europe, the 500 or so dangerous terrorists held at Gitmo hardly seems like the point on which history will turn.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 04:24 PM (tHqp5)

36 Re-reading my comment, I thought I should clarify that I meant the mainstream media does most of its recruiting from the left, not the terrorists.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 04:27 PM (tHqp5)

37 Sean, Excellent questions. Methinks that on a blog where people think that fascists were synonymous with communists - answers won't be forthcoming. MSD Fascism (in Italian, fascismo)refers to the right-wing authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 04:41 PM (qE9S5)

38 Flanstein, this really is going to boil down to the talking-past-eachother semantic argument over whether fascists belong on the left or right of the political spectrum, isn't it? Fascism as devised by Mussolini (a former member of the Italian Socialist Party) was, as I've said before, a schismatic heresy WITHIN socialism: it was totalitarian, statist, and revolutionary; socialist but anti-Marxist because it was national rather than international. There's nothing conservative about it at all. What exactly did it ever try to "conserve"? Does "National Socialist German Worker's Party" sound conservative even to you?

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 05:26 PM (ZKuUj)

39 Dave J is right. We can debate the left vs right thing till the cows come home but the reality is fascism is no more conservative or right-wing than communism. Both were and are murderous totalitarian ideologies that are practically indistinguishable in their goals and in their means. Flanstein, you can equate fascism with the "right wing" if it makes you feel better about yourself but the truth is fascism is a logical extension of left-wing thinking, not right-wing thinking.

Posted by: MSD at June 14, 2005 05:41 PM (tHqp5)

40 "fascism is a logical extension of left-wing thinking, not right-wing thinking." I guess if you can convince yourself that it's a positive step to lock up human beings in a foreign country in order to circumvent your own laws - then it's no trouble convincing yourself that the above is true as well. Self-hypnosis at ats finest...

Posted by: Flanstein at June 14, 2005 05:59 PM (qE9S5)

41 Would you care to offer an actual argument to refute that statement, then? Or is that beneath you? Fascism, like communism, is ultimately one of the innumerable totalitarian ideological spawn of the French Revolution, while conversely the starting point of conservatism as a conscious and coherent political philosophy was Edmund Burke's rejection of that revolution.

Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 08:12 PM (ZKuUj)

42 The first *effective* starting point was Thomas Jefferson. As for circumventing laws - the Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists, the GC doesn't apply to terrorists. Where's the circumventing? Maybe we should establish new laws for Gitmo and do like many other countries would do - put them against the nearest wall and shoot them?

Posted by: Jay at June 14, 2005 10:58 PM (PuNh2)

43 Jay has stated rhetorically what is actually legally permitted when unlawful combatants, saboteurs and spies are captured during war: Execute them. Gitmo is an unhappy solution at best, and the best of all the other unhappy solutions. I don't like it, but I can't think of an alternative. I, and a large number of American bloggers, are open to alternatives, but all we get are criticisms of what is, not ideas as to what should be. (I guess we reflect Congress.) The topic morphed into a real discussion of ethics, which is good, yet once again it's about what we expect from Americans than from, say, Canadians, which is disturbing. Crunch time, Flanstein: are you saying that you expect Americans to behave more ethically than Canadians? Don't you see that drawing what happens into the USA into a discussion about Canada implies that you consider the USA to be the highest standard to which Canada can compare herself? If not, then why not compare Canada to, say, a European nation? The constant references to the state of the USA implies that it is somehow superior, an assertion I reject. Every person in every country has two choices: either to set standards for their country and strive to exceed those standards, or accept mediocrity. Our heritage exhorts us to form a more perfect union; it thereby teaches us that we do not have the most perfect union (and our Christian heritage reminds us that we will never attain perfection.) (Stephen den Beste wrote on that topic at length and I'd give proper credit if I could find the essay. At least I had the pleasure of spending the last few hours in his archives trying - unsuccessfully - to locate it!)

Posted by: Debbye at June 15, 2005 01:15 AM (68qnq)

44 Debbye, I have never said that Americans are, or should be, more ethical than Canadians. They should however be more ethical than the islamic enemy. Why? Because, like Canadians and Europeans, Americans are civilized men and women. You have a Constitution and a body of law. Farther up this thread, Sean (far more eloquently than I) stated the concerns liberals, libertarians and right-minded conservatives have with this place: "The most worrisome thing about gitmo is the justification behind allowing it. The supporters say the prisoners aren't POWs and shouldn't be protected by the GC, or the constitution doesn't apply because of such and such. As right as they may be, the bothersome thing is that they've actively searched for ways to circumvent the GC and the Constitution and whatever other protection civilized man has codified. So overzealous are they in defending gitmo by finding loopholes that they lose sight of the purpose of said documents. How did these documents become the enemy? Why are the gitmo defenders not holding the US up to a higher standard? Are more precisely, why don't they want to?" Anyone who has ever visited my blog (http://flanstein.blogspot.com) knows that I am not a liberal. I have been name-called on this thread because I point out, what I believe, to be a real ethical crisis in your country. Civilized nations do not lock up people (POWs, prisoners, enemy combatants – whatever euphemism you want to use...) on foreign soil to circumvent their own laws. Since the “war on terror” is unlikely to have an end date, these people locked up at gitmo are likely to spend the rest of their lives without benefit of jurisprudence. Although they may all be murdering, terrorist monsters – that is still wrong. Saddam is getting his day in court and so will Osama when he is caught. Gitmo is a PR nightmare, a tool to recruit little jihadis in far-flung Islamic hell-holes and, most importantly, fundamentally WRONG.

Posted by: Flanstein at June 15, 2005 10:28 AM (kEm8U)

45 I don't disagree with Sean's assessment of the "loophole" nature of the Gitmo solution and should have stated so (this was a hard thread to digest in toto early this morning.) When Gitmo was first proposed and clearly presented as a loophole solution I knew it was wrong, yet the stupidities of the Moussaoui case are equally wrong. I just honestly don't know what else to do. The fact that this is all new territory for us and the rest of the world should and must force us to keep exploring better alternatives. There is value short-term in the enemy not knowing who we have, though. That premise of Gitmo was accurate. Still, the detainees are not POWs, plain and simple. The Geneva Convention states very clearly what criteria is used to determine what criteria is used for POW status, and the prisoners at Gitmo don't qualify. (They do qualify for execution, an option the US has not exercised and which I would oppose.) We are back at square one: offer an alternate solution. I'm not being facetious or rhetorical. Many of us don't like Gitmo, but it would be irresponsible to just criticize until we have something to propose and for which we can agitate. The seriousness of the dilemma is that nobody suggests we just let them go because we all know they are a threat. I hate being in this predicament. I hate my country being in this predicament. Canadians face a similar dilemma: here they too lock people up indefinitely and only a judge is allowed to view the evidence against them. And, as in the case of the detainees of Gitmo, deporting them to their countries of origin brings up other issues, such as the lack of respect for human rights in those countries. I understand your last point, but the past few years have taught us that everything is a PR nightmare and a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Even taking out the Taliban in 2001 was deemed to be such. Yet the Arab street didn't explode (unless you count Lebanon!) Bottom line: our very existence is a PR nightmare and our very existence is a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, but I'm not about to apologize for what we are and what values we hold in order to appease a culture that kills homosexuals and denies the rights and potentials of females. That door swings both ways, and in far too many respects, the Arab world too has found itself in a PR nightmare. After all, how many people had heard of "honour killings" five years ago? Back on topic, I don't want fear to become paranoia, and I don't want to see a repeat of Sept. 11. I hope there's a better compromise than Gitmo but I have yet to come up with one. I really hope somebody does. Oh, and I'm holding up fine, Dex! I just need to make it through Father's Day. That wacky world of retail - I need to find a more serene job, like bomb disposal.

Posted by: Debbye at June 15, 2005 12:31 PM (Eyb5W)

46 Debbye, If they're not POWs, then they're prisoners and need to be taken to your country and dealt with judicially. That means trials and evidence (secret or not) incarceration and, if deemed necessary, executions. They need the protection of your constitution, or failing that, international law. You are currently prosecuting all sorts of the same types of criminals in your country - why are these guys any different? Terrorists, jihadists, and financial supporters alike have all been marched in front of a judge, had legal representation and were incarcerated. Keeping them locked up in a foreign country - telling the world they don't come under the protection of the GC - and, oh by the way, since they're not actually on US soil, they are not protected by US law either, is folly. I don't doubt that every one of them is a sack of puss that deserves a bullet in the head, but unless you get them out of gitmo, they will continue to be martyrs to Muslims and soft-headed twits the world over. Civilization is predicated on a judiciary that is separate from the will of the government. If you seek to remove that pillar, then people (like me) start asking questions about the efficacy of said civilization. Writer Brian Aldiss once said; “Civilization is the distance man has placed between himself and his excreta”. Gitmo is a backwards step towards the poo…

Posted by: Flanstein at June 15, 2005 05:14 PM (Vwo8l)

47 As I understand it, Debbye's point is that Gitmo is the best of all possible options available for dealing with captured terrorists, at least for the time being. Flanstein, surely even you can see bringing terrorists to the U.S. to face trial under the domestic legal system is an unworkable option, as the Moussaoui case has demonstrated. You can't fight a war as a law enforcement operation. While I agree with Debbye that holding the terrorists at Gitmo indefinitely can't ultimately be right, the PR issue is beside the point. What the left has failed to grasp is that it is the perception of American weakness and lack of resolve that has engendered the most loathing on the part of the Islamists. We can admit that Gitmo may not be the perfect solution in the long run without advertising our self-doubt to the world and the terrorists. What is needed is strength and unity and a demonstration that terrorism won't be tolerated. The United States, above all, needs to be seen as strong and resolute without stooping to the level of the terrorists, which in spite of all the indignation, Gitmo doesn't even come close to doing.

Posted by: MSD at June 15, 2005 06:34 PM (tHqp5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 9 - The Poundmaker protest continues but they are running out of money and the car they relied on for transportation has broken down.

Darcey has a brief update and adds

I am guessing they would appreciate moral support so be sure to take some time and email your greetings to Tyrone to pass on: tyrone45 at nativeweb.net.

Short version: they are taking peaceful, legal action to redress their grievances. Would that the rest of Canada took note.

Sorry about the light posting - I slept through the day (yay!) and have to hit the road.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

June 8 - I hope Americans and Canadians have been sufficiently intrigued by the links to The Monarchist to continue to read their current outpouring and read their archives.

There are welcoming some new members of that team with familiar names: Madison and Adams, who charges right in with An Atheistic Individualist Defense of Monarchism. (He doesn't say, but I assume the writer is invoking John, not Samuel, Adams.)

The sorest grievance of our Founding Fathers was that they were denied their rights as free Englishmen, and that could not and would not be borne. I think that this Adams incarnation can safely be regarded as one who found a sympathetic hearing from the Crown and Parliament, which brings to bear the "what if" line of historical reasoning which is somewhat applicable in a Canada which was populated by Loyalists but who retained nonetheless a recognition of their duties and rights as Englishmen in this country.

[I mean no disrespect to Quebeckers or Acadians, yet I think it accurate to say that the philosophical connotations of being "free Englishmen" is deeply ingrained in the unfolding of the political histories of the U.S.A. and Canada - at least pre-Trudeau - which is the only basis on which an Adams might still be arguing on behalf of the monarchy. ]

I realize that the teaching of American history has changed a great deal since (ahem) my day, but, if we are to reclaim our heritage, the full recognition of what our traditions and institutions owe to Mother England must be acknowledged and respected, and it wouldn't hurt Canadians to do the same.

Yet at the end of the day, I am an American and thus willing to place my hopes in the works and dreams of men, not the intervention of monarchs however benign and most definitely not in the intervention of someone appointed without Parliamentary review to represent that monarch.

Nonetheless, the site has some of the most thought-provoking essays I've read, and I don't think I'm being overly complimentary when I compare their work to that of Stephen den Beste. I'm only speaking for myself, but some of the essays I've read have resulted in my leaving the computer to pace and reflect on the points they've made.

There are aspects of the Parliamentary system which jar an American consciousness. There are no fixed terms, but that is supposed to provide a different kind of check - yet a check nonetheless - on tyranny:

What the Liberals don't seem to understand is that it is not for the government to determine if it has the confidence of the House, it is the members of the House who make that determination. And a majority of them have just voted for the government to resign on a procedural motion, which obviously constitutes a very serious challenge to the continued legitimacy of their authority to govern this country. The only way for them to get out of this mess now, is to seek clarification from the House at the earliest possible opportunity (as in today), that they still have the democratic and constitutional authority to carry on.

I took a Canadian history class, and (perhaps unfortunately) exposed my far too open American nature when I expressed disbelief on learning that such was not mandatory in the Ontario school system. That may explain part of the reason Canadians did not take to the streets when the Martin Rogue Government failed to "seek clarification from the House" at the earliest opportunity - too few realized that respect for parliamentary safeguards as well as protocol demanded the Liberals call that vote immediately and not at a time of their choosing.

We Americans cannot afford to be smug on this: our own school systems have failed to provide comprehensive civics classes which would give our younger citizens a working framework to understand the traditions and workings of our own government, and we should look to the current crisis in Canada as a red flag moment for our own country.

One example: you will not find the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, yet far too many Americans believe it resides there, and some of those misguided citizens are lawyers and journalists who ought to know better.

For Canadian readers, it is not so necessary to agree with views advocated by the essayists of The Monarchist as it is to read and study them. Such writings in my country came to be known as a collection of works called "The Federalist Papers" which informs our consciousness to this day, and as Canada finds herself on the brink of an identity crisis, it might be useful to be open to more than one frame of mind before declaring the debate ended.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:26 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 768 words, total size 5 kb.

June 5 - Americans may well wonder that a blog titled The Monarchist has produced some of the most stirring and urgent writings on behalf of liberty in Canada that I've ever read.

(In truth, I wonder myself but I am also bemused by my own feelings for and loyalty to a Queen whose ancestor was utterly reviled by my ancestors so have just filed that contradiction away in the belief that insight will come in its own time.)

Walsingham wrote a follow-up to the widely acclaimed Tipping Point (which dispensed with any last beliefs that all Canadians are inherently passive) and in The Tipping Point - Part II, the basic framework of consensual government and how the federal government have broken that bond is reinforced:

Because the truth is this: in democratic government, process not only matters, it is central. It matters more than anything else; more than any specific outcome that it might produce. The “true left” should understand that it is not simply that a corrupted process that worked against the right - and the West, and Quebec - this time around; might well work against them the next time. They should understand that faith in a process that is open, fair and consistent - i.e., in a government that is representative and responsible - is the only thing, other than tyranny and coercion, which can hold a society together for any length of time. Free men will consent to submit their wills to those of others only when they believe that they do so as the outcome of a process in which they have been heard, on a fair and equal footing, along with all others; and - most critically - that that same process will turn their way, if and when they come to command majority support. Nothing will dissolve the bonds and restraints that make a democratic society function – presuming, of course, that the society is composed of men and women who retain the capacity to be affronted by insult and injustice – faster than the discovery, by any semi-defined and quasi-permanent constituency, that the process is rigged against them.

I have to go to work and wonder at my co-workers who are more afraid of Stephen Harper than those in government who have stripped them of their rights as free people.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:15 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

June 5 - Answer: start a blog and call it Waking Up On Planet X!

As Candace explains, I fell asleep in a democracy ...

It is always cause to celebrate when insightful commenters choose to strike out on their own and start blogs, and given the political situation in Canada and the inclination of the media to elide (at best) or applaud (at worst) the brazen acts of this government, the voices of those who oppose the dismantling of democratic safeguards and the destruction of those institutions meant to separate partisan ends from the country's needs are the more urgently needed.

Welcome, Candace!

Posted by: Debbye at 08:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

June 5 - Fired U.N. Official Seen as Fall Guy. Ya think?

My mind is too full of similarities between Adscam and the OFF scandals to articulate them, and the involvement of Canadians Louise Frechette, Reid Morden and Maurice Strong bodes ill.

Now we can add another set-back to Canada's self-image as a caring society: Canada Free Press has an expose of yet another indication of the Strong family's hypocrisies, this time involving Oxfam, which uses Chinese slave labour to make their anti-povery wristbands.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

June 4 - The Grewal tapes exposed something horribly wrong in this country. We've grieved and gotten angry, but that isn't enough.

There are some people out there determined to bring honour and integrity back to Canada, and a lot of them are at Harper Liberals .

Everyone has a different breaking point. These people have reached theirs.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

June 3 - This morning I read that the PM vows to clean up mess:

MONTREAL (CP) - The Liberal party's efforts to rebuild its electoral fortunes in Quebec were reinforced Thursday evening with Prime Minister Paul Martin vowing not to let those responsible for the sponsorship scandal ruin the party's reputation for

rehabilitating the country's finances.

"We, the Liberals, put our government finances in order," he told a party fundraiser where an estimated 1,200 supporters each paid $500 to dine on grilled salmon.

"And we didn't do it so that a group of people could tarnish the reputation of our party and cause people to lose confidence in our country's political class."

It was all about the balanced budget! (Now there's a slogan you don't often see on a protest placard.)

The Martin Comedy Revue continues:

Martin, who said he understood the disappointment of Quebecers and Liberals caused by the scandal, vowed to subsequently introduce measures to prevent a repetition of such abuses.

"As prime minister, I will do everything in my power to ensure that your government deserves your respect."

Transport Minister Jean Lapierre told the gathering that the event demonstrated that the Liberal party is financed openly and not behind closed doors.

"We have nothing to hide. Our books are open and our hands are clean," said Martin's Quebec lieutenant, who was joined at the event by cabinet ministers from across the country, including Conservative-turned-Liberal Belinda Stronach, who received a standing ovation.

"Tonight is the beginning of the reconstruction of the Liberal party throughout Quebec. We will rebound in Quebec thanks to the unwavering integrity of our leader, Prime Minister Paul Martin," Lapierre said.

Recent opinion polls suggest, however, that the party faces an uphill climb to regain public support in Martin's home province. The Bloc Quebecois has consistently received about 50 per cent of support in polls, suggesting it was headed to winning a record number of Quebec's 75 seats.

The audience delighted in Martin's attack on Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper for their "underhanded dealings" that he said are threatening the country's stability.

Martin said if Bloc MPs wanted to defend Quebec's interests, they would have supported the budget, which contains millions of dollars in annual spending for the province.

"Their objective is to destroy the country," the prime minister said. "And in that, they will never succeed."

As for Harper, Martin questioned how the Tory leader can explain "his common agenda with the separatists."

Martin said the interests of Quebecers have been defended by Liberal MPs, senators and ministers who have spearheaded Canada's positions against participating in the U.S. anti-missile shield and in favour of ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

"Through its progressive ideals, its social values, and its innovative ways of doing things, Quebec plays a key role within Canada," he said.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:22 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1088 words, total size 8 kb.

June 2 - There couldn't be a worse week to ramp up action at work!

The revelation as to the identity of "Deep Throat" has inadvertantly sharpened the differences between the scandals rocking Canada's Parliament right now and Watergate, and it isn't pretty.

The break-in at the Watergate Hotel eventually revealed illegal wiretaps on political activists, mail tampering, vandalising the Muskie and other campaigns, CIA activity on U.S. soil, and that U.S. presidents since Kennedy had habitually taped telephone conversations. Deplorable as those were, they were mostly acts of agencies that went beyond their mandates and, as a result of the hearings, they were curbed.

That is not what is being revealed in Canada. We should be so lucky up here for the scandals to be about agencies that went beyond their mandates - oh, for the good old days when the RCMP planted dynamite and burnt down barns!

The current scandals are all about personal gain - Adscam is about stealing money, plain and simple. The Liberals offering inducements to MPs to defect and/or abstain on the vote are the acts of a group of people who believe that others are as power-grubbing and mercenary as they are.

That is a poor reflection on Canadians, because the ease with which the Liberals and NDP were able to bribe the provinces and cities is itself an inditement.

When Inky Marks went public, it was pointed out that he had no proof. Grewal got that proof, and he is now being denounced for getting that proof.

It is hardly surprising that accusations of tape-tampering are being leveled, but to my mind the fact that Tim Murphy was in Grewal's office settles the matter: Grewal held the power, so Murphy went to him; Murphy could have walked out at any time; Murphy was in that office because Grewal had something Murphy wanted - a vote.

Had Grewal taped a conversation with a child pornographer in order to get evidence to take to the police he would be hailed as a hero. But he taped conversations that persuade that the worst fears about this government are true: that appointments are handed out as pay-offs - even important positions like Ambassadorships - and if competence is not even a consideration, it explains why government agencies up here are run so poorly. [Note I am not saying that Grewal is incompetent - only that they were going to offer him whatever he wanted, not what he was suited for.]

Watergate was a double-edged sword for Americans. The euphoria of being proven correct - that those funny sounds on our phones, late mail delivery, and strange looks at work were not all due to paranoia - was accompanied with sorrow, because our government had interfered with the right to organize legal, peaceful protests and thus our rights under the First Amendment.

That was the angst of Watergate - learning that being right brings its own costs.

The scandals rocking Canada are all about greed and the lust for power. Those who have long believed the Liberals are corrupt are being proven right, and we are finding it is not a cause to celebrate.

The part that is most perplexing is the failure of Ontarians - and the media - to realize that the Murphy scandal is far more serious than Adscam. The latter is about money, and greed is something we all encounter, but the former is maniuplating the powers of government, and that threatens far more than our pocketbooks.

If Canadians allow this to pass, then truly consensual government in Canada has gone from endangered species to extinction, and I doubt it can be revived by conventional means.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:55 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.

June 1 - I've spent a greater portion of the day reading the Grewal tape transcripts and watching CPAC.

Between those and the new revelations as to the identity of Watergate's Deep Throat I am struck by the cosmic forces that have forced these two scandals to interweave in counterpoint.

Nixon's downfall was due to his attempts to protect his people; Martin is trying to do the same. The word "irony" springs to mind.

What can I possibly say? More importantly, what will Canadians say?

The transcripts of the Grewal tapes are in .pdf here, here, here, and here.)

June 3 - And the missing section here.

(Courtesy of Neale News.)

Posted by: Debbye at 09:13 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.