Catchme

The prime minister appeared to be linking the MP to terrorism in my opinion. Jdobbin, you are correct Harper was inferring that the MP might be linked to terrorism, but by extension he was also erroneously inferring that the Liberals were as well, or indeed any opposition party member who supported the removal of the temporary measures were as well.

This is interesting, as I was just pointing out yesterday, that the Canadian government and the Military were breaking Canadian and International Laws. 2 groups ask court to stop transfer of Afghan prisoners Two human rights groups said Wednesday they are taking legal action to stop Canadian soldiers from handing over their prisoners in Kandahar to Afghan security forces. The practice exposes the prisoners to possible abuse and torture and is a violation of international law, Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said in Ottawa. It also contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they said. "Canadian soldiers must never be part of a process that could lead to torture," said Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada. "The detainee agreement should mirror our domestic values and match our international commitments and not be a conduit to possible future human rights violations." It also notes that "the incidence of torture on detained or imprisoned persons was still occurring throughout the past year,.. The Canadian Forces have refused to allow detainees access to legal counsel before being transferred to Afghan authorities, Neve said. This practice is contrary to the Charter of Rights, he said. Britain and the Netherlands have negotiated through their agreements with Afghanistan the right to check on the condition of their detainees, according to Neve. Amnesty has urged Canada to do the same, Neve said. One solution to the problem, he said, is for Canada to set up its own detention system that it could share with Afghan authorities. Such a system would also enable the Canadian Forces to train Afghan security forces in the humane treatment of prisoners. And with a sensible solution given yet. Too bad our NEW government is more concerned with playing games than actually governing. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/21/...sty-action.html

It is more than crass partisanship, it wad an outrageous lie and an attempt to deflect away from Harper's stacking of the judiciary that was being discussed prior to Harper's disengenuous play. What an evil man he is. Not only that there was never an issue about the father in law tesifying, ever, he has already spoken to the RCMP even long ago about what he knew. That Harper would use this ploy to try and discredit the Liberals for refusing to support the extention the anti-terrorism clauses that have sunset, by inferring it would benefit an Lib MP's extended family, is not only gutter politics but it is a fine example of deluded behaviour. 1. Baines father in law is willingly testifying, there is no prompt needed. 2. Nothing in the sunset clauses would actually compell people in the Air India trial to testify. 3. The sunset clauses are pro-active, not retroactive tools that are redundant and unecessary as the Criminal Code already covers it, and do not hold up to the Charter litmus, which it was argued prior to them even being included, that was why they were sun setted. 4. Harper feels he has the right to use props, aka clipping, when it is against parliamentary proceedure. 5. Harper feels he has a right to use gimicks to deflect away from his stacking of the judiciary, as he does not want Canadians at large to know what he is doing and why it is wrong. 6. Harper feels he has a right to turn the HoC into a gong show mockery and shameful a sham. 7. No rational person would ever believe the Liberal Party, as well as all the other opposition parties, would get rid of a redundant and human rights breaking temporary measure, so that an MP's father law would not have to testify. Particularily when, it is a well known fact, that the father in law in question, has been fully up front with speaking to the RCMP about what he knows and is willingly testifying. 8. Harper's over blown sense of self is fool hardy and lacks character and judgement meaning that he cannot see that his actions were wrong, and this shows great delusion.

The truth is more problematic, then a "coverup". Not sure what you are meaning?

As we all know, from the Harper theo-con thread, the majority, excluding perhaps 2, latest appointees Harper has made to the judicial committee, have no qualitifactions to determine the quality of Judges need, as outlined above. Moreover, not only do they not have the qualifications, there is stong possibility that they DO NOT have open minds and any ability to put aside pre-conceived ideas that would foster an ability to make wise choices.

Then what are your thoughts on the O'Conner Hillier feud that has been going on this last little while? Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

Wow, hiti, so much information all in one thread. But then, I suppose having it all together like that, does make an impact statement, much more so than having all the facts, on just who Harper is, being split into separate threads to be exposed. It is, confounding, that this person does hold the highest office in Canada, even by the pitiful margin that he does. Harper saying this:You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society." CBC prior to getting into the office he currently holds, should have been a heads up, as to what would come later, if he ever gained power. Sadly, some people were so disgruntled about the Liberals, that when Zacardelli did his infamous and false public accusations just prior to the election, it tipped a small portion, into being less cautious than they would normally have been, and prompted them to vote in a manner that they would not have before. Now, we have a man, and a party, who believe their slim minority, gives them the mandate to step beyond the boundaries of: the actual mandate they have, truth, good leadership, and human decency. For them to think, they can behave in any manner they want, and to conduct affairs of Canada in any manner they see fit, without regard to Canadians is beyond any concept of sensible thought. They are so consumed, and driven, by personal agenda and self delusion, that they think they are above Canadians and Canadian processes. To bring a newspaper clipping, which by the way is NOT allowed by Rules of Parliament, as props are not allowed in QP, not only breaks the laws of parliament, but it exposes Harper's lack of respect for Canada and its institutions and also Canadians. That he feels himself above it/us all, is even more telling about his core nature. Considering this, and the content of the newspaper clipping, and what Harper was trying to imply with it, not only lacks integrity and an unwillingness to deal in truth. It exposes a dangerous, and a duplicitous, mean nature that is supremist, racist, and that is completely underhanded.

Well hey, isn't that the claim you made about some poll were you didn't like the result. No I read it, and it doesn't talk about pulling out in the report that I'm reading. Yes I agree with most of the reccomendation's, you don't agree with them. That's why I'd rather have our troop's stay in Afghanistan, and instead see that government's, especially the American's reevaluate some of the economic and humanitarian assistance needed in Afghanistan. Why try to place the blame on just the Americans? The "NEW" government of Canada needs to re-evalute, as opposed to making war plans right up to 2011. And yes, I do agree with the majority of the Senlis Councils words and am on record saying so, how strange that you again to try to put words in my mouth and say the opposite. Remember, it was I who posted the links in the first place to the Senlis council. Not you! Good try on the shifting sands though. Your words say, that you would rather have the military stay and be increased to fight insurrgency. As opposed to approving the Senlis Report's saying more are needed to be counter insurregents, which actually means NO additional fighting, less bombing, and more focus on the basic needs of Afghans and rebuilding. As opposed to blowing them to bits through fighting an insurregency, that is growing daily, because innocent Afghans are: being killed, left with nothing, and are not having their basic needs met because everything has been destroyed. 1. There has been an evolution of the actual nature of insurgency since 9/11 In Afghanistan, the international community has opted for a counter-insurgency approach that fails to see the current evolution of the insurgency. The Taliban and similar insurgency groups operating in Afghanistan are perceived outside Afghanistan as part of the Jihad and Al Qaeda movements. Although some core Taliban leaders could be seen in this light, most Taliban fighters are local Afghans who have either been attracted by economic incentives or are driven by legitimate grievances. These grievances have resulted in anger, frustration and disillusionment with the government and the international forces. Again you are over looking what the report says and you are ignoring what Afghans are saying and doing, and why they are saying and doing the things they are. If ALL our military is going to do, is continue to blow them to bits and say they are fighting insurrgents, while their actions are creating more insurrgents, they need to be pulled. And because it appears as though, that is their only intent, by your words, the words of Hillier, and the CPC government then ergo they should be pulled. The Canadian military, under the governance of the CPC, are NOT conducting the correct Mission, they are not following the original mandate for deployment, and they are not following a national policy that the majority of Canadians believe in and expect. Contrary to what you believe, Canadians are not pathetic, nor are they apathetic. This seems to be a common mantra from the partisan right in order to justify their desire to erode the rights of Canadians and indeed peoples from around the world, for personal agenda and capital gains. Some may not be fully engaged, yes, but overall Canadians are well informed, mindful of others, and want to be responsible world citizens. They do not want to be exploitive of others, nor believe they have a right to erode and destroy the right of action and freedom of conscience.

The blogged article was obviously posted only to point out/prove where Harper showed/proved he cared nothing for HIV/AIDS. Dissing the article only shows an attempt to deflect away from the proof presented that Harper's snub of the AIDS conference says it all. The fact that he did not attend, and snubbed it, indicates the very real hypocrisy of Harper's now trying to appear as if he cares about HIV/AIDS, when he made a huge political gaff in NOT going to the AIDS conference in Toronto. His actions clearly sent a message out about how little store he puts into HIV/AIDS and people. This attempt, to cover that gaff and the message it sent, is highly spurious, and it only indicates that Harper trying to regain lost political support, and regard. This NEW interest by Harper, in AIDS is only indicative of: hypocrisy, lack of personal integrity, and how far Harper is willing to go, to try and stay at 24 Sussex. These could be the only reasons why he did not attend and his absence sends out the following messages. 1) He's homophobic. 2) He's anti-social. 3) He's afraid of his political rivals. 4) He can't deal with confrontations. None of them indicate a person who should be running a country.

The "decade of darkness" Gen. Hillier spoke about was the 1990s. Starting with the 1991 federal budget, successive Conservative and Liberal governments reduced the funding and strength of the Canadian Forces in what some in the military then called the "death of a thousand cuts." That message is not partisan. The words Liberal or Conservative never crossed Gen. Hillier's lips. I know him well, and he has always been, as generals in a democratic nation must be, scrupulously apolitical. Then there is a story with the herald...Explaining that there is some problems with the CPC as well, what i fail to see is how he can be called PRO CPC. No, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, he pin pointed exact time frames, please do go back and look. He specifically stated 1994 forward. He neglected to mention it was the Liberals who started restocking the military and that indeed the new equipment presently being used in Afghanistan was got by the Liberals. They did NOT have to pass his lips. The implication and tacit support were evident in his rhetoric. Apparently, your definition of partisan rhetoric has flaws. And he was definitely NOT apolitical.

So the CPC is paying for poll's, which are meant for brainwashing. Yet the polls show that only 35% of Canadian's support the mission. If you wanted to brainwash people wouldn't you say that +65% of the people support the mission. The report call's for more troop's in fighting the insurgency. Oh, please you simply are as obtuse as that, spin it how you want, the fact remians 35% only of Canadians were found to be in support of Afghanistan. Yes, I held that info back as I wanted to see if you actually read the links, or responded without, and you did. funny how you blew past everything else the Senlis Council said and landed on the increased deployment and tried to spin it differently than what was implied through out the whole report conclusions. They do not want more troops to just fight the insurrgency, that is being disengenuous. They said MORE troops would stop the indiscriment bombing being carried out that kills innocent Afghans. And that more on the ground could provide the required counter insurrgency measures that are needed to to a stop to the growing insurrgency, because most of the Talibin ranks are now comprised of regular Afghan peoples who have been hurt by coalition forces and have legitimate grievences and went to the Taliban. In no way, does the Senlis report support the conclusion you made.

That's what I was thinking! I think my answer would have been an all-encompassing "using Bush-style dirty politics instead of runnnin on his own merit" which would have included the ads, the state functions, as well as.... Being the first government to launch attack ads outside of campaign times, and Branding all opposition as traitors to the country. Oh, I so hear you both! It was hard to choose. Great questions figleaf!

No, I did not bring up Kempling and SSM, good try though. I was discussing Mr Brown's personal agenda to and it was part of the quote. Regarding your 50/50 poll, I could put up others that would show a different public opinion. SSM is an issue of Human Rights and NOT a morality issue based upon myths. Seeing as how you insist on putting words in my mouth that weren't there. I will let this go.

Harper is not maintaining a minority government, the polls show is below where he was when elected. The minority has been sustained because of Liberral Party disarrray, and the NDP understanding that Canadians wanted the government to work and did not want an election. Putting words in my mouth, yet again, that aren't there, I see. Please refrain from doing so. Please provide proof that Harper asked Dion anything.

True to form talking points again. Good job! Makes it easy to answer. The CPC's poll of 35% who approve of the mission in Afghanistan, that was derived from, their taxpayer funded, focus groups is way more accutrate than random sampling, that you keep mentioning. Since, the 2 polls actually occured around the same time, I will take as fact, the CPC's poll, where the questions would not have been skewed to get the wanted results. But good try on the band wagon effect. No, Hillier quite clearly noted "pre-emptive"> The Senlis Council is on the ground in Afghanistan, I will take their word as fact, which they got from Afghans, over a moniker on a forum. The Canadian and coalitions actions are killing innocent Afghans and driving the rest to the Talban, at this rate, ALL of Afghanistan will be Taliban, as situation created by the punishing actions of the military occupiers who are not living up to their contractual obligations and the parameters of counter insurrgency. I see again you completely avoided the Senlis Council Report.

Got your talking points did ya? Apparently, you read nothing the Senlis Counil reported on. In fact, you avoided mentioning it at all. Here you go again: It does not matter how many polls in the world there are, Afghans want things different. And it is Afghans who should be listened to, no one else matters, it is their ground they are on. here you go again perhaps a read of these 2 points would help? I would take the CPC's tax paid 76k poll derived from Focus Groups which said 35% of Canadians are in support of the mission, as to a poll of the same time frame,l by Angus Reid, that you are speaking of. The results would be way more accurate with Focus Groups than random sampling with slanted questions. Never said the military were being punished, are you having problems reading or with comprehension? You are continually putting words where there are none. I said Afghans were being punished needlessly. Coalition actions have driven Afghan civilians to the Taliban. Hillier's words were wrong. The aircraft were not the only NO BID contract. Again, recent polls done by the CPC say that the majority of Canadians DO NOT support the mission. See the Taxpayers paying for their own brain washing thread. No, sadly and apparently, the madness, that is exhibited by Harper and his supporters is not over. Apparently you care nothing for Afghans.

What the #@#$@? Did you see this in a Liberal campaign advertisement? Oh come on, you really believe all Canadians are stupid. Anyone can see that, it is written for goodness sake. Problem is there are people who are doing everything they can to deny the hypocrite that Harper is. The reason Harper is a good leader is partly that he is a rational, not emotional person. He doesn't let his personal beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. He does in the end what he thinks is right for the nation, not for him. If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him. Harper is not apparently rational, and he is definitely emotional, and he is definitely letting his beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. Harper always does what he thinks is best for him, who are you trying to kid? Wrong on all 4 accounts. And what is with the comment; "If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him"?

So, all Buddhist's, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim's, Christian's, Jews, Confucianists, and Pagan's, are not fit to be lawyers or judges. Really, this doesn't sound like it's about the seperation between church and state, it sound's more like a government policy supporting atheism is the norm. As for gay marriage if that is brought up, during the debate it was around 50-50, so then by that reasoning 50% of Canadian's can't sit as a judge. With relation to the Kempling debate, if anything Kempling's right's were violated. You do just love to put words in people's mouth's, that are not there, to deflect away, eh?! It is about people controlling the judiciary, who are focused on using their mythological beliefs to erode/take away other Canadians rights. Mr Brown spoke it himself. Hopefully you are not going to call him a liar? Lawyers and law socities choosing a mushy grey middle, to have the judicary based upon, is actually appropriate for a democracy. It matters not what their personal mythologial religion is based upon, as long as they do not have a personal belief agenda. An agenda that is geared to erode the rights of others, because they do not believe others have the right to freedom of conscience, and action, or to in someother way harm Canadians, should NOT be part of a democracy. If Harper did not have an agenda in stacking the judiciary with evangelicals, he would have appointed other types of peoples with differing religions. I mean after all, if Harper wants grass roots to have a say in picking the judiciary, as he said, then the appointments should have actually met Canadian religious demographics. Do not know why you brought up Kempling and SSM? And when was it a 50/50 split?

Well, we now know why O'Connor would not let the Armed Forces Committee off of the base to have a look around, when they were there a couple of weeks back. And interestingly the CPC government is keeping mum on the Senlis Report's findings, I guess they must be trying to figure out how to spin it..and after all Hillier said it was a mission NOT a war! But apparently he was wrong again, or just being diengenuous. Afghans were the ones who needed to be listened to. As well as the majority of rational Canadians. The majority of Canadians knew, what was up and who did not support the government's changing the "mission" orders to this pre-emptive and wrongfully punishing military action in Afghanistan. It was the wrong MISSION at the WRONG time. Tanks were not needed, 150k shells were not needed and hateful language towards Afghans, by Hillier, was not needed and was totally unprofessional and inexcusable. Way to go Canadians, it would appear we are not the pathetic ones after all. Pretty in touch I must say. It seems, the Canadian Government and Military Officials were perhaps failing to heed the constructs of the signed agreement with Afghans and national and NATO policies. It also seems they were trying to keep the legal parameters secret from Canadians for a reason. The Senlis Council report says this as well: It is too bad the Canadian government shrugged off, Layton's proposals last fall, for many of these very things that the Senlis Council has noted, and recommended from direct polling of Afghans. Seems again, Layton is the only one in Ottawa who actually knows/understands what's going on and who actually cares about Canadians and our military personal, as opposed to greed and corruption as being the motivators for supporting needless warfare. And we just spent billions on no bid military contracts, arranged by former arms broker, reborn as our Minister in Charge of the Military, Gord O'Connor. Arms that apparently our military should not be using upon Afghan civilians, on a mission we should not be in. Starting to smell alot like Cheney and Halliburton around Canada it seems. Harper et al sound like Bush et al for a reason. Seems Harper's visiion for Canada is not so clear, eh?! Decisive means nothing when one is making the wrong decisions. More on this in this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....16entry188216

Hillier is a great role model. If my kid was in the military I would be thanking my stars he had someone like that for a boss. Perhaps you wouldn't be, perhaps you may be criticizing him for wrongful war mongering policies and making the situation in the world worse and needlessly endangering canadian military lives. And perhaps endangering your kid's life needlessly. Good thing you'r just arm chairing your support though, and your "kid" is not actually in the military. Because he was and is wrong. On all accounts. Please read: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....16entry188216

Too bad Harper used all that money of us taxpayers to try and sell us the War in Afghanistan, when he should have been listening to what we Canadians were saying about what should've been going on in Afghanistan in the first place as opposed to pre-emptive actions, against just whom? What the Council says: http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publi...018_publication

When did Harper say he was going to do that??? What mythology??? When did Canada get nuclear weapons??? What??? Unless something illegal is going on... Really what was the point of this post, you went from a really rational response, then veered right off into a fear nutty paranoid dystopic fantasy land. This is why I abhore the old party label's, because no matter what you always have those extremists of the left and the right who take everything radically out of context because they are blinded by ideology. If the left, and the majority of people are driven by nothing but unsubstantiated fear, then we have a problem in this country. None of what you described above has even been talked about by Harper, not even mainstream evangelical organization's. Plus your bringing American politics into this, if Harper is a Republican, he probably is a Lincoln Chaffee, or Arnold Schwartzenneger. Either way, really, that's pure paranoia. Perhaps you failed to see I was over stating and generalizing, to make a point to the person who called the left loony. Though I think you did see it. But choose to take the oppotunity to bash the left. Why did you fail to call the person, who called the left loony, on it? Instead you chose to try and re-enforce a false perception of the left. Indeed right after saying you opposed old party labels, you used the term "left".

Not going down that road with you, I was very selective in my statements, no matter how you try to twist it.. I said those that did those things were terrorists, I never broad brushed. I was very clear on why I felt that radical fundamentalists who were not anti-choice, anti-gay, terrorists, but who had other "negative aspects" in their beliefs, frightened me. Quite frankly, I do not feel that level of fear from other fundamentalist religious groups in Canada.

I will refer you back to the topic of this thread, and the focus groups, that we paid for, that were prompted by the 35% approval that was current in December 2006. There was no mention of balyee your post to me. NATO sanctioned action to go after Osama. There were no pre-emptive components until after the hunt and battles for Osama were over. Canadians were there on a reconstruction mission and security mission until Martin changed it. Y International Law does NOT encompass pre-emptive actions. Which is why the war in Iraq is considered illegal under International Law. In a few years, perhaps not so many now, who knows how those who engaged in pre-emptive actions are going to be dealt with. As International Law also states that it is up to the individual military person to adhere to Inrenational Law, as well as the Laws of their Land, and if they do not and accept orders and carried out orders, that were in violation od said laws, they could be charged under International Law. It would seem that angus reid is more than a little off in their poll, because the Canadian taxpayers paid large so the CPC could find out exactly where we stood. So, as result of the focus group, we paid for, we are now being told lies on the Can Gov website. They are portraying kids and reconstruction with false references to development and reconstruction. When we are now spending more than $9 on combat for every $1 dollar spent on reconstruction. Moreover, it was released today in the HoC, that the CPC are drawing up plans to stay until 2011.

Ya right, he is supposed to let politicians stick up for the military. That's how they got so run down in the first place. Fascistic impulses aside, folks, do you really not get why the military should stay out of government? What do you think? Should fire chiefs be allowed to publickly say they have a funding crisis? How about cops? Water supply technicians? Chief Medical Officers? Shouldn't they all be slient and let the politicians take care of us>? Apparently they do not get it figleaf, nor do they get why there are rules against military partisanship commentary and actions. There is a difference between saying there are funding crisis, which many before Hillier did say, than chastizing a former government in order to make the current government appear better. Hillier ignored the fact that it was the Liberals and Martin who stated the resupplying of the military, and placed all the gratuity for this, upon the CPC, when the military has NOT even yet received what has been ordered. Not only was he breaking the rules he was being disengenuous. Then his fullout Gord is wonderful took it well over the top. One does not hear Chief Medical Officers, fire chiefs, or the RCMP saying such things. Yes, they say there are monies needed, and they say they got money they do not prostrate themselves to the government, or officials, who did so, nor do they berate those who didn't in a partisan way. Again, those that think this is okay are extremely partisan. AGAIN, had he given the fiberals praise, we would not be hearing from you. If he said what you WANT to hear, you would not care...... My your partisanship is showing, which is why I suppose you are ok with Hillier being a poor role model and breaking military rules. But you are correct, you would not be hearing from me, had Hillier also praised the Liberals, as then he would NOT have being partisan, and he would've been giving credit where credit was due. It is NOT about what I want to hear, it is about what is fact, and what is breaking military rules. Had Hillier come out and praised only the LIberals and trashed another party, I would have been saying the same thing.