Some trivia, trivialization and triteness for your late night consideration! I booted up this blog this evening and was thrilled to have a total of 917 votes on the site “poll” that asks which leader do you trust on environment issues? The poll on my blog site says 37% of you think no leader can be trusted on environmental policy. This site based “polling” is not only unscientific…it is not even dependable enough to be considered non-scientific. But it is fun.
All but some 100 poll participants of the 917 totally“random respondents” happened on the site this Saturday night. Lots of lonely misanthropes out there I expect. I think it is time for you to take your 8 Tracks and donate them to Value Village. It will be an opportunity to advance society as you know it, feel good about yourselves and get on with your lives.
I am flattered to have been “invaded” because it implies I have more influence than I deserve. Yes only a lawyer could be that arrogant. The other reality is that such site based polls are more pathetic then prescient. I prefer to think of them on both criteria of, non-prescient and yes they can be pathologically pathetic too. But they can be fun.
That said, I welcome the 917 citizens who have taken the time to make both points and demonstrate the folly of such “polls” (aka surveys) in general. In fact I expect the 917 “visitors” to my site are no less self selecting but slightly more “robotic” than those found to respond to traditional polling processes...but I could be wrong…do not mistake this comment for sincerity – it is unadorned and purely feigned humility.
That said again, I will continue the folly and offer such “polls” on this site. The questions in the future may be more appropriate to the "mind set" of the robotic respondents however. We need to focus so we meet the needs of this audience that I have attracted. I want them to feel welcome and to come back to the blog because they could be the essence of the George Bush “base” that inevitably want ot relocate troops into Canada when he pulls them out of Iraq. He needs the troops to go somewhere to s4cure oil supplies. He needs an alternative for returning troops other than unemployment for the next year so his term can end on a high note patriotically. Why not have the disenchanted retreating Bush Republicans become more appreciative of their northern energy alternatrive - Canuckistan? I hope this blog helps?
Please come back to this blog often you robotics, retreating Republicans and Harper Cons and invade the polls at will and even feel free to comment on occasion - but only if you are sentient.
I come from the premise that the best way to support democracy is to lie to a pollster. I am hardly a pollster but admire the "dissing" inherent in the civil disobedience, the prank-like dishonesty and intellectual disingenuousness exemplified by such a "poll" invasion. Such participation has invigourated this little blog site, perched as we are way out here on the edge of the blogosphere.
I neither honour nor salute you but I do offer you my indulgence. What questions would you like to see posed on this blog that are so trite that the answers will symbolize the essence of vagueness and vaccuousness (presuming that is a word)? Please no Anna Nicole Smith suggestions please. She has already had more MSM coverage than 9/11…there are limits of tolerance in the universe of tripe!
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Is Harper More Audacious Than Authentic?
Prime Minister Harper’s trustworthiness and integrity is starting to go into meltdown. His audacity outstrips his gall given reports on his comments and political stance in light of the RCMP single criminal breach of trust charge on the Income Trust investigation.
His obstreperous refusal to pull or at the very least change his French language attack ad to correct what is clearly misrepresents the facts on Ralph Goodale’s relationship to the Income Trust investigation based on the RCMP findings. This attitude is reprehensible for someone who aspires to be a national leader and an avatar for Canadian values of fairness and honesty.
His original Harper government stance on Bill C-288 that requires some government planning on how we might meet Kyoto targets this last week, was reckless and disrespectful of democracy. Harper’s government said it was “toothless” and denied it would have any application to his Conservative government. This Bill, regardless of if it is good or bad, has been passed in the House of Commons by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Canada. It is now in the Senate for approval and on its way to soon becoming the law of the land.
NO politician, not even the Prime Minister of the country has the luxury of ignoring the law. Harper has belatedly come to his senses and has now given a half-hearted acknowledgement that he will be bound by the law. Thank you very much Mr. Prime Minister, for that concession to democracy and to the rule of law.
Speaking of the rule of law, the intrusive political meddling of Prime Minister Harper in the Justice Review Committee process adds to Canadians diminishing confidence in his character and competence to govern. Winning an election with tactics and guile is one thing. Governing with wisdom and authenticity is something entirely different. It appears now that Prime Minister Harper may have imbued with oodles of the form talents but have a dangerous dearth of the latter.
The MSM and blogosphere is starting to pile up with commentary on the clear and present danger Mr. Harper’s approach to politics and governance represents. In the face of such a threat, the typical citizen’s cynicism, skepticism and indifference of the recent past are dangerous responses with dire consequences.
Canadians had better engage and become active in the political process and consciously and conscientiously participate in the next election. Otherwise “their” government will be made up of fundamentalists and ideologues with a nasty brutish and short temperament.
These people are on a mission to control and limit our personal freedoms and to impose their own prescribed moralistic value set on the rest of society. In a free and democratic society they have every right to pursue those ends within the democratic means of open and free elections.
In a democracy with majority rule we always get the kind of government we deserve, even if we did not select it ourselves due to indifference. Majority rule is a myth if a majority of citizens do not even show up to vote. Remember the world is run by those who show up! Canadians better show up in this next election and send a clear message about what kind of Canada they want. We have to “take back” our government by informing ourselves on the issues and then voting our own consciousness…but voting for sure.
His obstreperous refusal to pull or at the very least change his French language attack ad to correct what is clearly misrepresents the facts on Ralph Goodale’s relationship to the Income Trust investigation based on the RCMP findings. This attitude is reprehensible for someone who aspires to be a national leader and an avatar for Canadian values of fairness and honesty.
His original Harper government stance on Bill C-288 that requires some government planning on how we might meet Kyoto targets this last week, was reckless and disrespectful of democracy. Harper’s government said it was “toothless” and denied it would have any application to his Conservative government. This Bill, regardless of if it is good or bad, has been passed in the House of Commons by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Canada. It is now in the Senate for approval and on its way to soon becoming the law of the land.
NO politician, not even the Prime Minister of the country has the luxury of ignoring the law. Harper has belatedly come to his senses and has now given a half-hearted acknowledgement that he will be bound by the law. Thank you very much Mr. Prime Minister, for that concession to democracy and to the rule of law.
Speaking of the rule of law, the intrusive political meddling of Prime Minister Harper in the Justice Review Committee process adds to Canadians diminishing confidence in his character and competence to govern. Winning an election with tactics and guile is one thing. Governing with wisdom and authenticity is something entirely different. It appears now that Prime Minister Harper may have imbued with oodles of the form talents but have a dangerous dearth of the latter.
The MSM and blogosphere is starting to pile up with commentary on the clear and present danger Mr. Harper’s approach to politics and governance represents. In the face of such a threat, the typical citizen’s cynicism, skepticism and indifference of the recent past are dangerous responses with dire consequences.
Canadians had better engage and become active in the political process and consciously and conscientiously participate in the next election. Otherwise “their” government will be made up of fundamentalists and ideologues with a nasty brutish and short temperament.
These people are on a mission to control and limit our personal freedoms and to impose their own prescribed moralistic value set on the rest of society. In a free and democratic society they have every right to pursue those ends within the democratic means of open and free elections.
In a democracy with majority rule we always get the kind of government we deserve, even if we did not select it ourselves due to indifference. Majority rule is a myth if a majority of citizens do not even show up to vote. Remember the world is run by those who show up! Canadians better show up in this next election and send a clear message about what kind of Canada they want. We have to “take back” our government by informing ourselves on the issues and then voting our own consciousness…but voting for sure.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
RCMP Get Their Man - But Only One!
I see the RCMP have laid one solitary charge out of a 14 month criminal investigation around allegations of leaks from the Liberal government Income Trust initiative.
The investigation was announced during the last election by the RCMP and had an obvious negative impact on Paul Martin’s support and some argue changed the outcome of the election. Interesting allegation and hard to prove but serious questions still remain about the judgment of the RCMP around the launching of this investigation. Not that they did it but how they did it.
The RCMP confirmed today that no politicians were involved or facing any charges. No Liberal government political staff was involved or facing any charges. Just a single bureaucrat in Finance is now accused of breach of trust.
Almost makes you want to reinstate the former RCMP Commissioner who resigned over his incompetence on the Maher Arar affair just so you could fire him again for this fiasco.
I know the official line of the RCMP will be they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t pursue a criminal investigation in the middle of an election. The tragedy is they rarely ever let it be known publicly that they are launching such an investigation in the first place. But to not follow the usual procedure and do a public announcement of a criminal investigation right in the middle of an election is too coincidental for my “sniff test.”
This is not a Catch 22 for the RCMP – it was poor judgment at best and political interference at worst. And I don’t care which it is, either one is reprehensible.
And Prime Minister wants the police to have representation on the committees to make recommendations for political appointments as to who is qualified to be judges now too!
The investigation was announced during the last election by the RCMP and had an obvious negative impact on Paul Martin’s support and some argue changed the outcome of the election. Interesting allegation and hard to prove but serious questions still remain about the judgment of the RCMP around the launching of this investigation. Not that they did it but how they did it.
The RCMP confirmed today that no politicians were involved or facing any charges. No Liberal government political staff was involved or facing any charges. Just a single bureaucrat in Finance is now accused of breach of trust.
Almost makes you want to reinstate the former RCMP Commissioner who resigned over his incompetence on the Maher Arar affair just so you could fire him again for this fiasco.
I know the official line of the RCMP will be they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t pursue a criminal investigation in the middle of an election. The tragedy is they rarely ever let it be known publicly that they are launching such an investigation in the first place. But to not follow the usual procedure and do a public announcement of a criminal investigation right in the middle of an election is too coincidental for my “sniff test.”
This is not a Catch 22 for the RCMP – it was poor judgment at best and political interference at worst. And I don’t care which it is, either one is reprehensible.
And Prime Minister wants the police to have representation on the committees to make recommendations for political appointments as to who is qualified to be judges now too!
Is Harper's Justice Review Meddling Forfeiting Our Freedoms?
The Globe and Mail piece today by Kirk Makin outlines an example of what can go wrong when the separation of powers between the judiciary, the police and prosecutors get clouded.
The disturbing reality in the Truscott story is captured in this quotation:
"Defence counsel Phil Campbell told the court that the true nature of the evidence in the case was distorted and concealed for decades. "This kind of case -- where evidence starts to conform to the charge, rather than the charge conforming to the evidence -- is the hallmark of so many wrongful convictions."
"Mr. Campbell said that an honest belief held by Mr. Truscott's trial lawyer, Frank Donnelly -- that police and prosecutors would not mislead him about the exculpatory evidence -- was sadly misplaced. He said that Mr. Donnelly was far too diligent to have ignored evidence that would have bolstered his case."
"He was defending a 14-year-old boy he was attempting to keep from the gallows," Mr. Campbell said. "There is no way he would take it on the chin . . . if he knew there was a body of evidence that he could use to rebut the Crown and turn it to his advantage."
"Mr. Campbell said that, almost 50 years later, a combination of sound science, new witnesses and the unearthing of long-buried witness statements point directly toward Mr. Truscott's innocence. "
Here we have examples of suppressed evidence that might have proven the innocence of a citizen at trial. As a result a potentially innocent life is destroyed by the system. We have to await the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on the Truscott case to be conclusive about this.
We have, in the meantime, evidence that in Truscott' s trial prosecutors and police colluded to withhold evidence that did serious harm to a citizen's rights and freedom. That citizen was a 14 year old boy at that. It brings our system of justice into question. Why did they do this in the first place? To win at all costs?
What if the primary success factor of the legal system was measured by how well the police, prosecutors and judges were at "getting hard on crime" as Prime Minister Harper says he wants? Does that mean the system is successful if it gets a "win" by getting a conviction by what ever means it takes? Again at what cost will this be to our legal protections, the rule of law and the professional and independent role of the Bench, the presumption of innocence and due process?
I don’t know if that "win at all costs" attitude was the motivation in the original Truscott trial or the many other wrongful convictions that are now coming to light. But I do know if the test of a “successful” legal system is to get tough on crime and a conviction at all costs, that encourages the suppression of exculpating evidence. Then ask yourself, what kind of a chance will an ordinary citizen have in such a "justice" culture?
Imagine for a moment how vulnerable we all become in the face of such a system. The only real protections we have had so far is a qualified Bar along with independent Bench whose only master is a total dedication to a system based on the rule of law. If there is any equivocation of that dedication because it is fettered in any way by a political agenda of powerful people in the government, then, as Shakespeare said “…the state doth totter.”
Prime Minister Harper's inappropriate meddling in the Judicial Review Committee structure and process is inviting the state to totter. This is not some political posturing prank or a petty minded attack ad silliness. This recent action by the Prime Minister is designed and intended to increase the political influence on judicial recommendations and to disrupt the balance in the judicial review process. By the Harper government's own admission in Question Period on February 13, the existing system was working. (see my post yesterday).
Harper is now able to use his political discretion by accepting or rejecting the judicial appointment recommendations from the current review process. His recent political actions to extend his political influence into the judicial review committee itself are a danger and a threat to the freedoms of every citizen. It must not be tolerated in a free and democratic society.
The disturbing reality in the Truscott story is captured in this quotation:
"Defence counsel Phil Campbell told the court that the true nature of the evidence in the case was distorted and concealed for decades. "This kind of case -- where evidence starts to conform to the charge, rather than the charge conforming to the evidence -- is the hallmark of so many wrongful convictions."
"Mr. Campbell said that an honest belief held by Mr. Truscott's trial lawyer, Frank Donnelly -- that police and prosecutors would not mislead him about the exculpatory evidence -- was sadly misplaced. He said that Mr. Donnelly was far too diligent to have ignored evidence that would have bolstered his case."
"He was defending a 14-year-old boy he was attempting to keep from the gallows," Mr. Campbell said. "There is no way he would take it on the chin . . . if he knew there was a body of evidence that he could use to rebut the Crown and turn it to his advantage."
"Mr. Campbell said that, almost 50 years later, a combination of sound science, new witnesses and the unearthing of long-buried witness statements point directly toward Mr. Truscott's innocence. "
Here we have examples of suppressed evidence that might have proven the innocence of a citizen at trial. As a result a potentially innocent life is destroyed by the system. We have to await the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on the Truscott case to be conclusive about this.
We have, in the meantime, evidence that in Truscott' s trial prosecutors and police colluded to withhold evidence that did serious harm to a citizen's rights and freedom. That citizen was a 14 year old boy at that. It brings our system of justice into question. Why did they do this in the first place? To win at all costs?
What if the primary success factor of the legal system was measured by how well the police, prosecutors and judges were at "getting hard on crime" as Prime Minister Harper says he wants? Does that mean the system is successful if it gets a "win" by getting a conviction by what ever means it takes? Again at what cost will this be to our legal protections, the rule of law and the professional and independent role of the Bench, the presumption of innocence and due process?
I don’t know if that "win at all costs" attitude was the motivation in the original Truscott trial or the many other wrongful convictions that are now coming to light. But I do know if the test of a “successful” legal system is to get tough on crime and a conviction at all costs, that encourages the suppression of exculpating evidence. Then ask yourself, what kind of a chance will an ordinary citizen have in such a "justice" culture?
Imagine for a moment how vulnerable we all become in the face of such a system. The only real protections we have had so far is a qualified Bar along with independent Bench whose only master is a total dedication to a system based on the rule of law. If there is any equivocation of that dedication because it is fettered in any way by a political agenda of powerful people in the government, then, as Shakespeare said “…the state doth totter.”
Prime Minister Harper's inappropriate meddling in the Judicial Review Committee structure and process is inviting the state to totter. This is not some political posturing prank or a petty minded attack ad silliness. This recent action by the Prime Minister is designed and intended to increase the political influence on judicial recommendations and to disrupt the balance in the judicial review process. By the Harper government's own admission in Question Period on February 13, the existing system was working. (see my post yesterday).
Harper is now able to use his political discretion by accepting or rejecting the judicial appointment recommendations from the current review process. His recent political actions to extend his political influence into the judicial review committee itself are a danger and a threat to the freedoms of every citizen. It must not be tolerated in a free and democratic society.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
If the Judicial Review Committe is not Broken Why is Harper "Fixing" It?
This is an excerpt from Question Period February 13, 2007 on the appointment of judges by the Harper Conservatives. It is worth a careful read.
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, within months of taking office, the Conservatives began stacking the bench with their friends: the former president of their party in Quebec, the Conservative co-chair from New Brunswick, a Conservative fundraiser from Alberta, and on it goes. These appointments were made by the former justice minister until we caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.
Will the new, moderate justice minister do what his predecessor refused to do and stop appointing Conservative Party hacks to judicial positions?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there may be some confusion in the hon. member's mind. I should point out to her that all the appointments that have been made by this government have been recommended by the judicial appointments commission that the Liberals set up. Every one of them were recommended by the members that they put on that board. What is their complaint?
HERE IS THE COMPLAINT!
My question is about the answer by the Hon Rob Nicholson on the source of his government’s partisan appointees to the bench. He says:
Here is the complaint Mr. Minister. If the system was working – and by your own admission in the answer above - then why change it? If you could get your preferred appointees recommended anyway, why change the process and compositoin of the judicial appointments committee?
BECAUSE the changes you made will result in ONLY your preferred candidates getting through the review process. You will not have to deal with ignoring or rejecting any other qualified appointment recommendations that do not fit with your ideological agenda.
You have rigged the system sir to predetermine the answers you want, and to ensure you only to receive recommendations for appointments that meet a partisan ideological political agenda. It is disingenuous to suggest this meddling with judicial appointment reviews is about safe communities sir!
It is simply a reprehensible abuse of political power for its own sake. Nothing more. Nothing less
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, within months of taking office, the Conservatives began stacking the bench with their friends: the former president of their party in Quebec, the Conservative co-chair from New Brunswick, a Conservative fundraiser from Alberta, and on it goes. These appointments were made by the former justice minister until we caught him with his hand in the cookie jar.
Will the new, moderate justice minister do what his predecessor refused to do and stop appointing Conservative Party hacks to judicial positions?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there may be some confusion in the hon. member's mind. I should point out to her that all the appointments that have been made by this government have been recommended by the judicial appointments commission that the Liberals set up. Every one of them were recommended by the members that they put on that board. What is their complaint?
HERE IS THE COMPLAINT!
My question is about the answer by the Hon Rob Nicholson on the source of his government’s partisan appointees to the bench. He says:
“I should point out to her that all the appointments that have been
made by this government have been recommended by the judicial appointments commission that the Liberals set up. Every on of them were recommended by the members that they put on that board. What is their complaint?”
Here is the complaint Mr. Minister. If the system was working – and by your own admission in the answer above - then why change it? If you could get your preferred appointees recommended anyway, why change the process and compositoin of the judicial appointments committee?
BECAUSE the changes you made will result in ONLY your preferred candidates getting through the review process. You will not have to deal with ignoring or rejecting any other qualified appointment recommendations that do not fit with your ideological agenda.
You have rigged the system sir to predetermine the answers you want, and to ensure you only to receive recommendations for appointments that meet a partisan ideological political agenda. It is disingenuous to suggest this meddling with judicial appointment reviews is about safe communities sir!
It is simply a reprehensible abuse of political power for its own sake. Nothing more. Nothing less
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)