Another firestorm for Harper to put out

[peter_puck]

I disagree. Civil servants are entitled to whistle blower protection if they are reporting something that illegal or a risk to public safety. They deserve no such protection if they engage in partisan political activities. If the leaker is allowed to go unpunished it will undermine the ability of any government to communicate effectively with the bureaucrats because ministers will no longer feel they can speak freely with the bureaucrats.

I don't agree. What about the case in Ontario where the minister was caught on tape saying "we need to create a crisis in education". He basically wanted people to lie and spin things for political purposes

As for public safetly, I would tend to think a minister who was thinking more about the political cost rather than the human costs is news. I would want to know the minister is a jerk. I vote conservative, (or I have in the past), but if I were in this guys ridding, I wouldn't.

I could also add that this governments treatment of whistleblowers worries me. An environment where people are afraid to talk about legitimate concerns can give rise to fraud.

[capricorn]

I could also add that this governments treatment of whistleblowers worries me.

Cite? Do you have an example of the mistreatment of a whistleblower by the present government?

However, I do recall the shoddy treatment the Liberal government subjected Allan Cutler to when he blew the whistle on bid rigging and political interference. Chuck Guite, a high level player in Adscam, abolished his position and Cutler's career was in ruins.

An environment where people are afraid to talk about legitimate concerns can give rise to fraud.

If you're referring to fraud committed within the bureaucracy, supervisors and managers bear some responsibility of flagging and acting on those crimes. It would be wrong to rely solely on whistleblowers to protect the taxpayer from fraud committed by a very small number of federal employees.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud anyone who brings to light a government program that puts Canadians at risk. Yet, I don't think Ritz's jokes fit that criterion.

edit: link re Allan Cutler

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/W...01/1287221.html

Edited September 22, 2008 by capricorn

[guyser]

Marketing 101, dont put anything on your website that embarasses your clients.

[Topaz]

Those keeping tabs on companies' and other websites are probably already doing so from federal offices on government time without the knowledge of their superiors expressly to dig up negative stuff. So in that respect it is costing the taxpayer.

Remember, the Ritz comments made in a private meeting became public after one of the attendees sent the information to the press. It's quite obvious that federal employee did not feel any loyalty toward the Minister and broke confidentiality, which is usually expected from bureaucrats, especially at the higher levels of management. The other matter is that depending on the sensitivity and security classification of the information being discussed, the more likely the public servant took an oath of secrecy. If it was ever proven that the oath of secrecy was broken, that employee could be fired for cause.

May I remind you that people working in the US government, knew something bad was about to happen 2 years before 9/11 and tried to warn senators and congress but no more would listen. Some FBI agents even tried to warn the government. I rather have a whistleblower being paid than someone who doesn't inform the public what is happening in the government, no matter who the government is!

[cybercoma]

Can you clarify what you mean by "something bad"?

It was obvious before 9/11 that there were Jihadists trying to attack the US. September 11th wasn't the first time the WTC was attacked either, but I think it's a little dishonest to imply that they knew terrorists would hijack airplanes, fly them into the WTC and consequently cause as much death and destruction as they did.

[guyser]

...but I think it's a little dishonest to imply that they knew terrorists would hijack airplanes,

Why? It is not like that hasnt happened before.

[cybercoma]

Why? It is not like that hasnt happened before.

Why would you take something I said out of context and argue from that position?

What I said, "I think it's a little dishonest to imply that they knew terrorists would hijack airplanes, fly them into the WTC and consequently cause as much death and destruction as they did."

Of course it's not inconceivable that they would hijack airplanes, however, at the time, no one KNEW they would fly planes into the WTC. Besides, people that speculated this could occur were likely unable to foresee the extent of the destruction caused by the 9/11 hijackings.

Regardless, Topaz made a claim that people in the US government knew something bad was going to happen. He didn't specifically say, "People in the US government knew that terrorists would hijack airplanes and crash them into the WTC consequently causing thousands of deaths and the total destruction of 3 towers." Had he made that claim, one would expect him to back that up with an incredible amount of evidence. Saying they knew "something bad" was going to happen is pretty much meaningless.

[Argus]

Friends of former Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor???

Needless to say, it appears the Conservatives were doing business with a company that has some deep rooted racist tendencies to it.

Source

Oh stick it. This is a private company which is obviously aimed at "guys" and has a "guys" mentality. Such sites are all over the internet. It's not a government site, it's not a Tory party site. And having some goofy "guy type

" stuf fon its web site doesn't make the company racist.

The only people offended by this are the type who would never vote Tory anyway, especially the castrated male types like those found - well - here on this thread whining about this.

[guyser]

Why would you take something I said out of context and argue from that position?

What I said, "I think it's a little dishonest to imply that they knew terrorists would hijack airplanes, fly them into the WTC and consequently cause as much death and destruction as they did."

I did not take anything out of context. What I meant was that it was conceivable that , while they may not fly into towers, crashing them would cause a huge loss of life. The connections were there.

[guyser]

Oh stick it. This is a private company which is obviously aimed at "guys" and has a "guys" mentality. Such sites are all over the internet. It's not a government site, it's not a Tory party site. And having some goofy "guy type

" stuf fon its web site doesn't make the company racist.

That is true.

The only people offended by this are the type who would never vote Tory anyway, especially the castrated male types like those found - well - here on this thread whining about this.

Since I voted blue last time, and hang on while I reach down and check ...yes they are still there, it was an incredibly stupid thing for the company to do.

Am I offended? Nope. But I can see the blatant stupidity of a move that may cost them a lot of money.

Ill bet the Tories are pissed too. Otherwise why have them remove all links, logos etc?

Edited September 22, 2008 by guyser

[Riverwind]

As for public safetly, I would tend to think a minister who was thinking more about the political cost rather than the human costs is news. I would want to know the minister is a jerk. I vote conservative, (or I have in the past), but if I were in this guys ridding, I wouldn't.

It was a clever play on words ("death by a thousand cuts" changed to "death by a thousand cold cuts") where the phrase "death by a thousand cuts" has a primarily methaphorical meaning - not literal. Anyone who was "insulted" by such use of language in a private meeting really needs to grow up. However, I don't believe that the person who leaked this was insulted at all - they were most likely a liberal partsan who so the opportunity to score political cheap shots. Edited September 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

I did not take anything out of context. What I meant was that it was conceivable that , while they may not fly into towers, crashing them would cause a huge loss of life. The connections were there.

Just because there was a perceived possibility of terrorists being capable of executing the attacks, does not necessitate a knowledge that the attacks would be carried out. What Topaz was suggesting is that the government KNEW what was going to happen before it happened. It's not possible to predicate the future with any sort of certainty.

[cybercoma]

The only people offended by this are the type who would never vote Tory anyway, especially the castrated male types like those found - well - here on this thread whining about this.

What a ridiculous statement.

I vote Tory and I'm offended by their stereotype. It was an ignorant and stupid thing to post on a business website, especially considering they were contracted by the government as a supplier. "Rag-head" is a derogatory term that is entirely on par with words like "nigger".

That phrase paints a segment of society, whether involved in the hostilities or not, as having less value than the rest of us, so that we can feel better about taking part in the violence. I don't disagree with our efforts in Afghanistan, but I find it reprehensible that people could be so intellectually lazy that they try to reduce an identifiable group of people to "rag-heads", rather than actually directing their vitriol at the appropriate targets. What this company said was offensive to innocent people who wear head-scarves that do not agree with the ideologies of terrorists. If you don't care about being derogatory to innocent people, then I really feel sorry for you.

[guyser]

What Topaz was suggesting is that the government KNEW what was going to happen before it happened.

A troofer? Oi vey

[tango]

"Jihad? I'll give you a jihad you miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastard!" said a caption posted over a photograph of a rifle-toting John Wayne."

Is this what's causing the outrage?

Well first of all, it's a caricature depicting a rifle-toting John Wayne. So it's meant to poke fun.

Second, the way I take it John Wayne was referring to the enemy when he pointed out to JIHAD. Aren't suicide bombers and the Taliban doing their jihad against our troops? John Wayne called the enemies some colorful names. So? What's unusual about that?

The caricature is meant to make fun at the expense of the enemies. What's wrong with that?

Well ... for starters ... some of those "miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastards" (sic) are Canadian/American citizens who are offended by such gross and insulting generalizations.

And the slur is based on religion - see - "heathen" is a slur against nonChristian religions.

... Anybody else want to jump in here? ...

betsy?

[Oleg Bach]

Well ... for starters ... some of those "miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastards" (sic) are Canadian/American citizens who are offended by such gross and insulting generalizations.

And the slur is based on religion - see - "heathen" is a slur against nonChristian religions.

... Anybody else want to jump in here? ...

betsy?

I don't know how in secularized Canada - where anti-christism is practiced under the guise of religion - that there is one nominal white Christian that can call anyone a heathen - look at are tatooed god hating young - it's us that have de-evolved to hethenhood.

[Argus]

What a ridiculous statement.

I vote Tory and I'm offended by their stereotype. It was an ignorant and stupid thing to post on a business website, especially considering they were contracted by the government as a supplier. "Rag-head" is a derogatory term that is entirely on par with words like "nigger".

I disagree. It's certainly derogatory, but every racial and ethnic group has such slurs - ie, limeys, micks, polacks, etc. I don't think it's on a par iwth nigger. I don't think anything really is.

If you don't care about being derogatory to innocent people, then I really feel sorry for you.

Why would I care? It's not being derogatory towards me. <shrug> Why do you? It's a private company. It sold some flashlights and crap to the government a while back but it's not presently doing any kind of business with the government. So why is this even being raised as an issue except through some desperate attempt to smear the Tories?

[betsy]

Well ... for starters ... some of those "miserable, rag-headed, heathen bastards" (sic) are Canadian/American citizens who are offended by such gross and insulting generalizations.

And the slur is based on religion - see - "heathen" is a slur against nonChristian religions.

... Anybody else want to jump in here? ...

betsy?

First of all, I've already explained the emotions that come into play. Some of you may think it's not the "high road"...or that it may put our troops in greater danger.....some see it from another angle.

Second, it is clear that the caption is not referring to Canadian/American citizens. It is referring to jihadists.

Jihad is based on religion, so that explains the religion-based slur. But of course, it's not an accurate slur.

In fact the whole quote is meaningless because Muslims are not heathens.

This is just a marketing ploy of an arms dealer. "Go kill the enemy! And please use our knives!"

Edited September 23, 2008 by betsy

[Topaz]

Why would you take something I said out of context and argue from that position?

What I said, "I think it's a little dishonest to imply that they knew terrorists would hijack airplanes, fly them into the WTC and consequently cause as much death and destruction as they did."

Of course it's not inconceivable that they would hijack airplanes, however, at the time, no one KNEW they would fly planes into the WTC. Besides, people that speculated this could occur were likely unable to foresee the extent of the destruction caused by the 9/11 hijackings.

Regardless, Topaz made a claim that people in the US government knew something bad was going to happen. He didn't specifically say, "People in the US government knew that terrorists would hijack airplanes and crash them into the WTC consequently causing thousands of deaths and the total destruction of 3 towers." Had he made that claim, one would expect him to back that up with an incredible amount of evidence. Saying they knew "something bad" was going to happen is pretty much meaningless.

Since my name was mentioned I want to clear that 'he or him" is a "she or a her" better known as Topaz. If I gave example and websites, you probably won't believe any of them if your mind is already set that no government would attack itself, right? You probably wouldn't believe in the NAU and that the US $$ will become worthless to the rest of world very soon, either. GW, was given a report on Aug. 6th 2001 and in the report it said that a REAL possibility of terrorists flying planes into US building was real. FBI agents tried to report this but were stopped. Do your research, goggle 911 whistleblowers and read with an open mind.

[M.Dancer]

Since my name was mentioned I want to clear that 'he or him" is a "she or a her" better known as Topaz. If I gave example and websites, you probably won't believe any of them if your mind is already set that no government would attack itself, right? You probably wouldn't believe in the NAU and that the US $$ will become worthless to the rest of world very soon, either. GW, was given a report on Aug. 6th 2001 and in the report it said that a REAL possibility of terrorists flying planes into US building was real. FBI agents tried to report this but were stopped. Do your research, goggle 911 whistleblowers and read with an open mind.

and get a really shiney talking toaster....

[kengs333]

Can you clarify what you mean by "something bad"?

It was obvious before 9/11 that there were Jihadists trying to attack the US. September 11th wasn't the first time the WTC was attacked either, but I think it's a little dishonest to imply that they knew terrorists would hijack airplanes, fly them into the WTC and consequently cause as much death and destruction as they did.

Um... but they did know, just not when it would specifically occur.