Riverwind

The tapes make it clear that Murphy and Dosanj do not want to offer Grewal anything because he is not qualified. They are trying to string him along without promising anything. In addition, from Murphy and Donsanjs perspective they see Grewal as an unprinicpaled opportunist so they treat him like one. That said, it is still pretty unethical behavoir. They should have told him to take a hike. Stronachs promotion to cabinet made perfect sense - she is a high profile MP and she was put in charge of a portfolio that really needed an outsider to handle. It is rediculous to suggest that there was something nefarious about her appointment. Morever, this happens all the time in industry - one company will hire away an executive from another company by offering an attractive position. It is considered completely ethical unless the executive leave does something dishonest like stealing trade secrets or customer lists. Getting a interim report does not at all imply that it would exonorate Grewal. All that was suggested that they might ask the ethics commisioner to release something sooner than later in the hope that the ethics commisioner would exonorate Grewal. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

That is quite unlikely. The law on the books was never intended to include haggling over political appointments - it was intended to stop outsiders with influencing MPs with stacks of 50s. The RCMP will be very relucant to apply the law to this situation because it would create a precedent that could have far reaching ramifications. This is what I heard a professor of law say today - someone who is in a position to know these things.

There are several ethical breaches in thie Grewal tape affair: 1) The conservatives alterning the tapes to manipulate public opinion. This is yet to be shown but there is enough evidence to be very suspicious. 2) Grewal actively offering his vote in return for services. He claims it was a 'sting' but has provided no evidence to support that. However, logic suggests that Grewal was the one who intiated the discusions. 3) Murphy and Donsanj hinting a reward in return for Grewal's absention. No specific reward was promised, however, rewarding and punishing cacus members in order to ensure party loyalty is the way our parlimentary system works (whether you like ot or not). The tapes suggest that Murphy and Donsanj thought that Grewal had no chance of getting anything more than a parlimentary secretary position. More likely he would have gotten some committe work. 4) Martin doing a 'Clinton' by claiming that there was no deal when clearly they were trying to have an 'understanding'. I listed them in order of seriousness with 1) being the most serious ethical breach. That said: none of this excuses the Gomery mess, however, it shows that the Conservatives are hypocrites when they try to claim the moral high ground.

It took most of the press and the Liberals less than a day to verify the translation and the transcriptions. There are at least two different audio experts hired by media organizations that say there is evidence of alteration. Whether the alteration is signficant is unknown. But that fact that there are any alternations at all stinks.

The reason he suggested it because he heard his own words taken out of context and heard seperate statements spliced in to one. That said, the conservatives could have avoided such accusations if they released the tapes immediately instead of waiting 13 days. They still have not explained why it took so long to release them.

You praise Quebequers for being self-centered obstructionists but you call Ontario stupid for not giving Harper a blank check to govern. Sorry, my original point is still valid - if Quebequers really wanted the Liberals out of power they could vote Conservative. So stop insulting and blaming the Ontario voter and try looking at the CPC policies that make it difficult for urban voters to vote Conservative.

Probably not.

Copied from another thread because it is a more appropriate response to your comment here: I don't understand your logic. Quebequers have absolutely no interest in voting for the Conservatives - for many of the same reasons that people in Ontario have. In Quebec, the voters turn to an anti-system party which has no chance of being in gov't. If Francophone voters were willing to vote Conservative then the Liberals would already be out of power. If some prominate Francophones joined the party I am sure the CPC brass would sprain their wrists ripping the objectionable social conservative policies out of their policy book. In short, why do you blame people in Ontario for keeping the Liberals in power when the Quebec electorate has the power to throw them out but they choose not use it? In fact, If Francophone Quebequers switch to the Conservatives you would likely see the Liberal core support melt away in English Canada. I know I would for the CPC if they had a chance in francophone Quebec.

I don't understand your logic. Quecequers have absolutely no interest in voting for the Conservatives - for many of the same reasons that people in Ontario have. In Quebec, the voters turn to an anti-system party which has no chance of being in gov't. If Francophone voters were willing to vote Conservative then the Liberals would already be out of power. If some prominate Francophones joined the party I am sure the CPC brass would sprain their wrists ripping the objectionable social conservative policies out of their policy book. In short, why do you blame people in Ontario for keeping the Liberals in power when the Quebec electorate has the power to throw them out but they choose not use it? In fact, If Francohpne Quebequers switch to the Conservatives you would likely see the Liberal core support melt away in English Canada. I know I would for the CPC if they had a chance in francophone Quebec.

Wrong question: Should be: Should gov't of Canada use the notwithstanding clause to over turn the court judgements in 7 provinces and 2 terriories and take rights aways from law abiding Canadian citizens?

Your analogy is hardly appropriate. Whatever you think if the 'deal' making it hardly the moral equivant of murder. It is simply a case of political deal making that is no better or worse than what has gone on behind closed doors with members of all parties for a long time. I am sure Harper has made similar 'promises' to any number of supporters which he will have to fullfill if he gets power. Furthermore, the editing coupled with the delay releasing tape suggests a failing of ethics on the conservative side. There was lots of public talk of these tapes being evidence in a criminal charge - even if that does not happen the Conservatives should have known that any editing would be obstruction of justice and/or tampering with evidence - which are both criminal offences as well. That said, the ethical failing of the Conservatives may not be such a big deal, however, they have been jumping up and down screaming about how unethical the Liberals are. Those who throw stones should not live in glass houses. This was the first opportunity to the Conservatives had to show that they were different from the Liberals. They could have set a new standard for ethics in politics. Instead, they blew it.

One solution I haven't seen is to simply drop the federal same-sex marriage legislation (which may happen if it is not passed before an election). Because the other parties see it as a club to beat the Conservatives with. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have played right into their hands and ended up championing a issue which most people don't care about but simply reinforces the image of the CPC as a bunch of far right wing social conservatives.

A credible source now claims that the tapes were altered: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National It appears that Conservatives are no better than Liberals when it comes getting power. If Harper had the 'ethics' he seems to demand from the gov't he would have: 1) Asked Grewal to immediately release all recorded conversations (no 13 day delay) 2) Conducted his own investigation to ensure that Grewal was not hiding anything - kicking him out of caucus if Grewal refused to co-operate. 3) If the tapes revealed that Grewal was also acting unethically he should have asked Grewal to resign his seat. Why didn't he? Because he wanted to manipulate the situation to maximum benefit. But I guess he will say it is justifed since he was only doing it to save the country from the 'corrupt' Liberals. So much for the moral high ground.

Don't be absurd. Poor people get whoever they can, often some guy barely out of medical school working extra hours in a clinic. The rich get the top of the line experienced people with the highest skill levels. I have agree with Argus. The 'single' tier system in Canada is a useless myth that makes it impossible to introduce any meaningful reforms. Every other industrialized country with a publically funded health care system allows people who have money to pay for service. The way these countries ensure that the rich are 'engaged' in the health care system is to make basic coverage universal and mandatory. This has the effect of reducing the insurance costs of the rich even if they have to pay for additional coverage. The argument that doctors would leave the public system for private pratice is also make no sense because doctors that are so inclined move the US today. If anything allowing people to pay for services privately would bring some of these doctors back home.

Heard some analysis today of some pieces of the tape that sound like three seperate sentences spliced into one. If the Conservatives have manipulated the tape in any way they will have lost what ever moral high ground they think that they have. If find it hard to beleive that it was not manipulated - why else would it take 13 days to release the tapes. What pisses me off is that Conservatives know that they would do exactly the same thing if they had a shaky minority gov't and were falling in the polls - just look at how they behave in opposition and their willingness to go to an election at time which gives the BQ a huge electoral advantage. Harper, Martin, Duceppe and Layton - all the same in their willingness to maniupate and deceive people in order to push their agendas.

I also agree with your assement but I don't think I would worry about leaving my wallet unattended around them since I have noticed a disturbing number of people who are honest when it comes to people but dishonest when it comes to institutions.

Please detail this history of ethically shady activities. Asking constituants to post bonds in order to get visitors visas. He is currently under investigation for that by the ethics commisioner. The Vancouver Sun published a list of controversies that Grewal has been involved in the past - it seems like Grewal has a history of claiming he was offered posts by political rivals.

Inky Mark was the MP who claimed he was offered a senate seat - not Grewal. It would be really stupid for the Liberals to have approached either Mark or Grewal unless the CPC MPs had indicated that they were interested in advance. It is more l ikely that Mark's claims gave Grewal the idea that he could get something for himself by approaching the Liberals. Equally surprising is the fact that conservatives supporters seem to automatically assume that a MP with a history of ethically shady activities must be telling the complete truth. It is my belief is that the Conservatives would act exactly the same way if they were in power and faced with the same pressures. Look at how MacKay betrayed his agreement with Orchard my merging with the Alliance. Sure, MacKay can justify what he did but it definitely casts a pall on someone who likes to claim moral superiority to the Liberals.

I think the most likely explaination for Grewal and his tapes is that he was really looking for either an appointment or some way out of the ethics investigation he was under. He likely recorded the conversations so he could use them for blackmail at a later date. He later invented the story about the sting because he could not get the firm commitment. In the transcripts, Dosanj does sound way too eager to hand Grewal positions but Murphy sounds like he is stringing him along to get that absention. It is quite possible that Murphy had no intentions of giving someone like Grewal anything like what he asked for. Murphy knew that once Grewal abstained he would be kicked out of the conservative caucus and would be in no position to ask for big favours after the vote - especially if the Liberals won the election in Labrador. I agree it is pretty underhanded but Grewal was the one who set the tone for the discussion by insisting on that senate seat over and over again. The Liberals are now claiming that stuff was deleted from the tapes. It will be tough for the conservatives to prove that this is not the case - mostly likely because they did delete stuff that made Grewal look even worse. If the Liberals can prove that the Conseratives deleted material then it will show that Conservatives are more than willing to toss their ethics out the door in their pursuit for power.

Ok, I'll bite: The purpose of prison depends on the crime and the criminal. In many cases, there may be reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. In others, deterance is the main motivation. However, in Holmoka's case pushiment should be the primary objective. Women live in a society where men are not only physically larger and stronger they also generally have more economic and political power. So many woman have learned to must less obvious when to comes to getting want they want. Female bullies in the schoolyard exist and can be more vicious than the males because they victimize someone by turning others against them rather than simply punching them in the face. The system needs deals to function effectively. The prosecuters dropped the ball in the Homalka case so we should be angry at them. Unfortunately, a deal is a deal. However, she could be prosecuted for other crimes. I don't see Holmolka as a repeat offender. She sounds like someone who is glorifies in her image as a bad girl but without Bernardo she is likely more talk than action. That said, if she hooks up with another psychopath then there could be trouble so the public should know where she is. Absolutely not. Any profits from her story should be seized as proceeds of crime. A reasonable question 12 years ago. Now given her complete lack of remorse, it is clear that she was as guilty as bernardo.

Everytime I call customer support for many different companies I get told my conversation may be recorded for QA purposes. I assume that these companies would not have added that warning unless their was some legal reason. However, that legal reason could be related to civil suits.

I was reading the transcripts, tough going though. There is so much to read and the conservatives deliberately highlighted the bits that suit them. It looks like the only thing that was seriously discussed were political positions such as parlimentary secretary or cabinet. Which is slimy but does not stink as much as offering diplomatic postings or senate seats. The biggest unknown is what the conservatives have deleted from the tapes. There must have been something incriminating for Grewal on them or they would have released them right away.

Actually make that an apology to everyone in the forum. I re-read my posts - I really went off the deep end.....

1) In almost all my posts I have tried the differentiate between the majority of Christians and the minority which espouse views which I strongly disagree with. That important distinction got lost in some of my replies (my apologies to all Christians that I inadvertently insulted). To make my views clear on the issue: I think there is nothing wrong with an MP who happens to be Christian - even a evangelical Christian - the only issue for me are the gov't policies that such a person is likely to promote. I believe that in moral grey areas were there is no consensus in society about whether something is moral or not then the gov't should err on the side of freedom. 2) The problem with abortion in this country is the people opposed to abortion are not willing to consider a compromise such as allowing first trimester abortions on demand, second trimester abortions under certain circumstances and banning third trimester abortions because the believe that life starts at conception. On the other side, people who support abortions are not willing to compromise because they believe the opponents would use it a leverage to gradually eliminate a woman's right to choose. 3) If the CPC wins a majority there will likely be enough abortion opponents sitting in the CPC back benches to force through some sort of bill. Unless the CPC leadership tells their back benchers to back off. My understanding is the Harper would do this for at least his first term - after that all bets are off.

"You must do that , Sir because that is the price you must pay for living in a free society that accepts people with many different view points" And other people think that teaching your kids to believe in God is 'child abuse' (there was a thread on this forum about this topic). If someone expects others to respect their religious views then they must respect the views of others. A cop out. Most people would only donate a fraction of the tax savings to charity. The hospitals for the poor in the US are miserable places that would not be out of place in a 3rd world country. "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver Wendell Holmes. Because people make mistakes and, if given the chance, will rebuild their lives and contribute much more back to the society that helped them. Why should my tax dollars go to support a vegetable on life support who has no chance of recovery but is kept alive because of someone else's misguided (IMHO) views on the sanctity of life? I am prepared to accept that our health system should respect the views of the family on this point but I expect that people with that point of view to respect my point of view on similar difficult moral issues.