The Afgan Documents - The Government Responds

[Keepitsimple]

It can get confusing - Parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate, the Cabinet, Speaker of the House, Points of Privilege, Freedom on Information, Ministerial Responsibility, National Security, Parliamentary committees......how does it all fit together? Here's a very lengthy explanation of the government's position on the release of documents. Keep in mind that the government is obligated to follow the laws, rules and precedents of our Constitution and Parliament. The Conservatives didn't write them - but they surely must follow them:

The government responds

Mr. Speaker, on March 18, 2010, three members rose on questions of privilege: the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River, the Member for St. John’s East, and the Member for Saint-Jean.

As numerous representations were made by the opposition on March 18, I hope you will indulge me with the opportunities necessary to respond to all of these points.

Mr. Speaker, it is not entirely clear from the submissions of the three members as to what exactly was being alleged as a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

For instance, the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River proceeded to accuse members of this government and officials of the Department of Justice everything from “malice” and “subversive intent” to “constitutional sedition” and “conspiracy”.

On the other hand, the Member for St. John’s East and the Member for Saint-Jean asked you to find a prima facie breach of privilege based on the House order of December 10, 2009. Yet, from the motion they proposed should such a prima facie case were to be found, they made it clear that no actual breach of privilege has occurred since the original order lacked procedures to protect national security interests.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to respond firstly to the questions raised by the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River, and then I would request the opportunity to address the question raised by the Member for St. John’s East and the Member for Saint-Jean.

Turning to the issues raised by the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River, as I see it, there are essentially two allegations before you regarding breaches of the House’s privileges:

First, the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River takes issue with a statement by the Minister of National Defence in Question Period on December 1, 2009; and

Second, the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River takes issue with a letter from a senior law officer of the Crown to the Law Clerk of the House of Commons, dated December 9, 2009.

I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that no prima facie breach is made out in either of these cases.

I suggest that this question must, like all questions of parliamentary privilege, be considered in light of two guiding values:

First, as is well-established in law and parliamentary practice, the principle of necessity must underscore all matters of privilege.

Second, as parliamentarians, we should always be guided by a principle of great restraint when asserting privileges of this House.

This approach was expressed in a report from a 1967 UK Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege when it recommended that parliamentary privileges and immunities should be exercised “as sparingly as possible” and “only when [the House] is satisfied that to do so is “essential.”

Similarly, O’Brien and Bosc cite Joseph Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada that “A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be reckoned with lightly, and thus rarely raised in the House of Commons.” Similarly, they cite the 1976 report of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members, chaired by Speaker Jerome, in noting that “a question of privilege is a serious matter, when validly raised, but was frequently resorted to when no real question of privilege was actually involved.”

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no genuine question of privilege is before you today and that the dignity and efficiency of this House would be better served by dismissing the questions raised by the Member opposite.

Before turning to the specific points raised by the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River, I would like to first emphasize that, in my view, the questions raised are primarily a matter of debate.

Freedom of speech is essential in a free and democratic society. Freedom of speech is also the cornerstone of parliamentary privilege. Freedom of speech is essential in order to facilitate debate in the House and more generally in a democratic society.

This means there is an acceptance that members will hold differing views – and they have the protected right to express those differences. That includes opinions as to interpretation of laws.

The central issue before you is whether parliamentary privilege gives the House an absolute and unqualified right to order the production of documents and to receive the documents, and whether any expression of views that it might not constitute a contempt of the House.

On the first point, I would remind the House that our parliamentary privileges are not indefinite nor unlimited, but defined by the Constitution and the Parliament of Canada Act as those possessed by the UK House of Commons in 1867.

On the second point, I would remind the House that the exact scope of those privileges has been a matter of debate since Confederation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, many of our parliamentary privileges are unwritten. While there may be general agreement on the existence of parliamentary privilege, because our privileges are not codified there are quite often debates on the scope of our privileges.

There have been occasions where the Government of Canada and the House of Commons have taken different positions on the scope of parliamentary privilege. An example was in the case of Vaid, where the Attorney General of Canada and the House of Commons took different views on the scope of the powers of the House to regulate its internal affairs. We also saw in that case that the scope of the powers of the House was found to be more limited than what had been claimed.

A similar debate is before us today. The Member for Scarborough—Rouge River has expressed an opinion on the scope of the powers of the House to send for papers. The Minister of National Defence, on behalf of the Government, has taken a different view. Similarly, the Law Clerk of the House of Commons has expressed his opinion on the powers of parliamentary committees to compel the testimony of witnesses, and the Department of Justice has expressed a different point of view with respect to government officials who are bound by the law and ought not to be pressured by parliamentary committees to breach their duties under statutes like the Privacy Act.

These differences in opinion are to be expected in a parliamentary democracy, and their resolution should be facilitated through debate, without imputations of bad faith, malice, subversion or intimidation.

This debate is not new. Nor is it limited to Canada. And while one might argue that in theory the House has absolute powers, Canadian and other commonwealth examples demonstrate that this has not been recognized in practice.

For example, Speaker Beaudoin observed in 1957 that “[n]o matter how ample its powers may be, there are certain documents to which the house is not entitled, and that is those a cabinet minister refuses to produce on his own responsibility.”

Similarly, in the United Kingdom, a Resolution on Ministerial Accountability was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons in March 1997, which acknowledged that Ministers may withhold information in accordance with access to information rules, reflecting the long-standing practice in that House.

In Australia, the Government routinely relies on Crown privilege to withhold confidential information from parliamentarians and a Senate committee in Australia acknowledged last month “that there are certain documents which although it may have the power to receive, the Senate ought refrain from demanding.”

Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice also states that while the Senate undoubtedly possesses a power to send for papers and records, “it is acknowledged that there is some information held by government which ought not to be disclosed. This principle is the basis of a postulated immunity from disclosure which was formerly known as crown privilege or executive privilege and is now usually known as public interest immunity. While the Senate has not conceded that claims of public interest immunity by the executive are anything more than claims, and not established prerogatives, it has usually not sought to enforce demands for evidence or documents against a ministerial refusal to provide them but has adopted other remedies.”

In 1990, a Canadian Special Committee on the Review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Security Offences Act stated that “matters of national security are by convention the prerogative of the Crown, not Parliament. This perspective has been enhanced by the view that intelligence agencies need a high level of secrecy to be effective and that making Parliament knowledgeable about such matters may not only politicize affairs, but may actually endanger the state by weakening the effectiveness of its defences.”

Against this backdrop, I would now like to address the two specific allegations made by the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River in turn.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first turn to the allegation that the statement of the Minister of National Defence on December 1, 2009, is – as the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River alleged in his remarks on March 18 – a “slander” of our House’s powers and an attempt to “intimidat[e] witnesses”.

Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental issues with this allegation.

First, this House is a place for debate: for the free expression of ideas and for Members to put forth opposing views.

The notion that a member could be in contempt of Parliament for stating an alternate point of view – or a minority point of view – would run counter to the fundamental principles of parliamentary privilege, which is the freedom of speech of Members. It is natural that members will not always agree with one another.

The Minister of National Defence made a statement responding to a question in Question Period. The Member for Scarborough—Rouge River evidently disagrees with the Minister’s statement. This is no cause for alarm, and it certainly is not a question of privilege.

If such were the case, Mr. Speaker, I am personally risking contempt by speaking in opposition to the Member’s question today! This is not the spirit, the practice, nor the purpose of this House.

The second problem with this allegation relates to the minimal role that the Speaker is empowered to perform in relation to Question Period. As O’Brien and Bosc state at page 510, and I quote:

“The Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the dictates of order, decorum and parliamentary language. The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.”

This debate over whether the House and its committees have an unqualified right to demand and receive government documents is actually a very old one. As I noted at the outset of my remarks, the practice of this House, and in other jurisdictions, has always been to acknowledge that some information ought not to be disclosed for considerations of public policy or national security.

Mr. Speaker, to hold today that the statement by Minister of National Defence is a breach of the House’s privileges rather than a question of debate would amount to foreclosing free speech and debate on an issue that has always been a matter of contention in Westminster parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the second issue raised by the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River, who claims that a letter from an Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice to our Law Clerk obstructs public servants and threatens statutory and civil sanctions.

The Honourable Member’s remarks in relation to the letter were unfair, injudicious and intemperate in the extreme. They impugned the good faith, professional competence and reputation of both a senior law officer of the Crown and the Department of Justice. The Honourable Member imputed possible motives of “malice,” “subversive intent” and “a conspiracy to undermine Parliament.” These allegations are baseless.

As Attorney General, I asked that officials review the December 7th legal opinion that Mr. Walsh provided to the Honourable Member for Vancouver South, and to provide to him the position of the Department of Justice in that regard.

The letter was part of an exchange of views between legal counsel on matters of law. On no reasonable view of the matter can the mere expression of a legal position by a law officer of the Crown constitute a breach of the privileges of the House.

Under the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General of Canada is the official legal adviser of the Governor General and the legal member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. Officers in my Department act, in principle, under my instruction.

It would be a breach of the constitutional separation of powers and an abuse of the proceedings of this House to pursue an officer of my Department for having issued, in the course of her duties, a letter to the Law Clerk of the House in response to speculation as to the position of the Department on an issue of law. The purpose of the letter was to clarify the Department’s position in a polite and principled manner.

This House is not a court of law, and its legal advisers are not judges. If a statute needs clarification, it can be amended by an Act of Parliament with the concurrence of this House.

While I respect our Law Clerk, his views are opinions – not the law. It is not a breach of privilege for a law officer of the Crown to hold a different view. To suggest that a legal adviser who has a different opinion from our Law Clerk, from the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River, or even of the House as a whole, is somehow in contempt of the House would be an abuse of our parliamentary privileges.

I would underscore at this point Speaker Fraser’s April 9, 1991, ruling that “The Speaker has no role in interpreting matters of either a constitutional or legal nature.” Speaker Fraser made a similar ruling in 1987 regarding the application of the Official Languages Act. Speaker Fraser cited Beauchesne’s 5th edition where it states that “The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law.” He then ruled as follows:

“From a procedural point of view, the contention of the honourable Member for Charlevoix that if the Official Languages Act does not apply to the House of Commons his privilege is infringed, is clearly not founded in precedent or practice. Whether or not the Act applies is a legal issue which the courts should decide, not the Speaker.”

I turn now to the substantive content of the letter of December 9, 2009. It begins with a succinct statement of some basic constitutional principles that underlie and strengthen our system of parliamentary democracy. None of these principles were invented by the Department of Justice; each of these principles has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as part of the fundamental structure of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing offensive to the privileges of this House in recognizing the existence of the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty, responsible government and the separation of powers as essential to the functioning of parliamentary democracy.

The letter of the Assistant Deputy Minister then states: “The Government of Canada has great respect for the work of parliamentary committees, and both Ministers and government officials are to strive to provide them with information in a full and transparent manner. However, government officials are sometimes under a legal requirement, imposed by a law of Parliament such as the Privacy Act or the Income Tax Act, not to disclose certain information without the consent of those to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed. Legal counsel may also be bound by well-established requirements of the common law, such as solicitor-client privilege, not to release information.”

This is an expression of profound respect for the work of parliamentary committees and it is repeated at the end of the letter. It is also a recognition that government officials are sometimes duty-bound by Acts of Parliament or other basic legal requirements not to disclose information without the consent of those to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed.

This is reflected in successive versions of guides to Ministers published by different Prime Ministers, which describe the responsibilities of public servants appearing on behalf of their Ministers at parliamentary committees.

For example, on page 14 of Prime Minister Chrétien’s guide, published in June 2002, it stated:

“Officials have a duty and specific legal responsibility to hold in confidence information that may have come into their possession in the course of their duties. Therefore, when appearing before parliamentary committees, they are bound by these legal obligations, as well as an obligation to the Minister and to the government, not to disclose information that is confidential for reasons of national security or privacy, or because it consists of advice to Ministers.”

Prime Minister Martin’s guide, published in 2004, contains a virtually identical statement at page 20.And that same statement is made on page 18 of the current guide, Accountable Government.

This has never been challenged by the House of Commons.

In 1991, the Government issued Notes on the Responsibilities of Public Servants in Relation to Parliamentary Committees. This document, which has not been rescinded or altered under successive governments, states, and I quote:

“Public servants have a general duty, as well as a specific legal responsibility, to hold in confidence the information that may come into their possession in the course of their duties. This duty and responsibility are exercised within the framework of the law, including in particular any obligations of the Government to disclose information to the public under the Access to Information Act or to protect it from disclosure under other statutes such as the Privacy Act.”

The letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister also cites the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid case for the legal proposition that Acts of the Parliament of Canada may apply expressly to the Houses of Parliament, such as the Official Languages Act, or implicitly, as in the case of the Human Rights Act. In the Vaid case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Canadian Human Rights Act had no application to the House of Commons because it did not so expressly provide; the Supreme Court held that that argument was “out of step with modern principles of statutory interpretation accepted in Canada,” and that the proper approach was to construe the words of the Act in their entire context, having regard to the scheme, object and remedial purpose of the Act.

Each of the three branches of government must respect the legitimate sphere of activity of the others. However, as the Supreme Court of Canada put it in Vaid: “Legislative bodies created by the Constitution Act, 1867 do not constitute enclaves shielded from the ordinary law of the land.”

The Member also raised the issue of the 1991 situation in which personal information protected by the Privacy Act was ordered by the House. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the order of the House was grounded in the authority of the Privacy Act.

I turn now to the paragraph of the letter that the Member for Scarborough—Rouge River characterizes as “contemptuous.” That paragraph of the letter reads in full as follows:

“Of course, there may be instances where an Act of Parliament will not be interpreted to apply to the Houses of Parliament (or their committees). However, that does not mean automatically that government officials—who are agents of the executive, not the legislative branch—are absolved from respecting duties imposed by a statute enacted by Parliament, or by requirements of the common law, such as solicitor-client privilege or Crown privilege. This is so even if a parliamentary committee, through the exercise of parliamentary privilege, may extend immunity to witnesses appearing before it. A parliamentary committee cannot waive a legal duty imposed on government officials. To argue to the contrary would be inimical to the principles of the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. A parliamentary committee is subordinate, not superior, to the legislative will of Parliament as expressed in its enactments.”

Mr. Speaker, there should be nothing controversial in that statement. It simply means that where the Parliament of Canada has, by statute, enacted a duty of confidentiality and imposed it on government officials, or where the law of solicitor-client privilege imposes a similar duty of confidentiality on lawyers not to disclose the legal advice given to their clients, or when some other legal duty such as Crown privilege is at stake, the proper attitude of government officials cannot be that they are instantly relieved of their legal duties when they are called to appear before a parliamentary committee. To assume otherwise would undermine the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, and would make parliamentary committees a law unto themselves.

This House has a long tradition of respecting the claims of confidentiality asserted by government officials. As the former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to this House, Joseph Maingot, Q.C., has written in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, “[w]ith respect to federal public servants who are witnesses before committees of either House, the theory of the compellability of witnesses may come into conflict with the principle of ministerial responsibility. By convention, a parliamentary committee will respect Crown privilege when invoked, at least in relation to matters of national and public security.”

There is nothing in the letter of the Assistant Deputy Minister that can be seen as an attempt to intimidate government witnesses. It is well understood that all witnesses who testify before parliamentary committees are immune from legal and disciplinary proceedings in respect of their testimony, and this is expressly acknowledged in the letter. Moreover, it is the long-standing policy of the government that officials should be as forthcoming as possible before parliamentary committees. The letter explains why those committees should not be pressuring witnesses to breach legal and statutory duties by which witnesses sometimes feel bound.

It is true that statutes such as the Privacy Act and the Income Tax Act do not apply (at least not expressly) to parliamentary committees. It is equally true, however, that they do apply to government institutions and officials. As the letter of December 9, 2009, states, “[f]aced with an apparent refusal to provide information, the appropriate recourse for a parliamentary committee is to report the matter to the House for its consideration.” If a statute needs clarification, and if public servants are to be relieved of their legal duties in respect of values such as privacy and confidentiality, then it is open to the Parliament of Canada to amend the Act accordingly. It is not open to a parliamentary committee to do so.

Finally, there is nothing in the letter of the Assistant Deputy Minister that would give rise to a reasonable inference that, as Mr. Walsh put it in his reply of December 10th, a government official might be “prosecuted or disciplined for making any disclosure in their testimony before a committee” and that thus the letter “may be seen as an indirect attempt to intimidate” government officials and thereby to “interfere with the proceedings” of a parliamentary committee.

First, it is well understood and confirmed in the jurisprudence of the courts that officials, like other witnesses who testify before parliamentary committees, are immune from legal and disciplinary proceedings in respect of their testimony. Secondly, it is the long-standing policy of the government that officials should be as transparent and forthcoming as possible before parliamentary committees. There is nothing in the principled views expressed by the Assistant Deputy Minister of the application of Acts of Parliament and other legal duties to government officials that could possibly give rise to the types of imputations and hypotheses made by the Member opposite.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are precedents where a prima facie breach of privilege has been found where a witness was threatened with legal proceedings as a result of his or her testimony before a committee. However, that is not the case here.

The letter from the Department of Justice was addressed to the Law Clerk – not to any particular witness. The letter did not concern a specific committee or a specific witness.

More importantly, nowhere does the letter threaten statutory or civil sanctions against a real or hypothetical witness. To the contrary, as I’ve pointed out, the letter recognizes that witnesses are protected by parliamentary privilege when appearing before a committee; the letter states “a parliamentary committee through the exercise of parliamentary privilege may extend immunity to witnesses appearing before it.”

The letter does state that a parliamentary committee cannot “absolve” officials from their legal duties. As I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, being absolved from a legal duty and being immune from prosecution for breach of that duty are two very different things.

I can state unequivocally that it is not and has never been, even remotely, the intention of the Department of Justice or any of its officials to pressure or intimidate government witnesses before parliamentary committees.

Link: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/31/the-government-responds/

[waldo]

to which some wag had the nerve to issue a Coles Notes version

"Dear Speaker, if you rule against us, we will create such an unholy mess of relevant and irrelevant arguments that Canadians will be trying to figure this out until Judgment Day. No point, no matter how irrelevant, will be off the table, and our True Believers will be fed talking points like you've never seen. Wouldn't it be easier for you to just give up now, considering our ability to clog the machine with bullshit and make it impossible for you to even imagine, much less achieve retirement?"

[eyeball]

This approach was expressed in a report from a 1967 UK Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege when it recommended that parliamentary privileges and immunities should be exercised “as sparingly as possible” and “only when [the House] is satisfied that to do so is “essential.”

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no genuine question of privilege is before you today and that the dignity and efficiency of this House would be better served by dismissing the questions raised by the Member opposite

Put this assessment to a vote and we'll soon find out if the house is satisfied with it.

There's nothing confusing about it, the government's response is a really long pile of crap. But who really gives one? It's too late, the damage is done and we've pretty much established that we're little if any better than the enemy.

Edited April 12, 2010 by eyeball

[Shady]

It's too late, the damage is done and we've pretty much established that we're little if any better than the enemy.

With sentiments like that, I'm not sure you deserve to be living in our country. If you honestly don't think we're better than the Taliban, then leave!

[Bonam]

It's too late, the damage is done and we've pretty much established that we're little if any better than the enemy.

Yes, because a little politicking in the house of commons is the same as burning little girls' faces off with acid. Clearly, we're just as bad.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, because a little politicking in the house of commons is the same as burning little girls' faces off with acid. Clearly, we're just as bad.

It's idiotic comments like this that only further my theory that partisan ideologues are either morons or insane.

[Bonam]

It's idiotic comments like this that only further my theory that partisan ideologues are either morons or insane.

No, the idiotic comment is that we're just as bad as the Taliban. My comment simply illustrates the depths of its idiocy by being more explicit.

[ToadBrother]

No, the idiotic comment is that we're just as bad as the Taliban. My comment simply illustrates the depths of its idiocy by being more explicit.

We're not anywhere near as bad as the Taliban, but the Government still ultimately answers to Parliament. Right or wrong, the Government's argument is bizarre and unsustainable from a constitutional perspective. It essentially argues that some subset of the Government's actions are immune from Parliamentary scrutiny.

[Natchuck]

It's idiotic comments like this that only further my theory that partisan ideologues are either morons or insane.

and, of course, you are one of those partisan ideologues

Edited April 12, 2010 by Natchuck

[Bonam]

We're not anywhere near as bad as the Taliban

Glad we agree.

but the Government still ultimately answers to Parliament. Right or wrong, the Government's argument is bizarre and unsustainable from a constitutional perspective. It essentially argues that some subset of the Government's actions are immune from Parliamentary scrutiny.

You could be right. I haven't been paying that much attention to this particular issue.

[eyeball]

Yes, because a little politicking in the house of commons is the same as burning little girls' faces off with acid. Clearly, we're just as bad.

Knowingly handing prisoners over to people that are allegedly ripping out their nails, electrocuting and sometimes killing people is just as bad as doing it ourselves.

It's right up there with burning little girl's faces off with acid.

[eyeball]

You could be right. I haven't been paying that much attention to this particular issue.

Perhaps you should.

Like the tyranny referred to in a New York Times editorial, it "can come silently, slowly, like fog creeping in 'on little cat feet.

Link

[ToadBrother]

and, of course, you are one of those partisan ideologues

Care to back that one up? How do you know political affiliation? How do you even know I have one? You don't, but because you've basically been programmed to believe that everyone must have some political sacred cow to protect, you assume that I must be a supporter of one of the Opposition parties.

Well, my new friend, I ain't none of them things. What I am is a supporter of the rule of law and of the constitution restraints on executive powers that have been part of our system since the Bill of Rights 1689. Want to debate me? Then let's debate the constitution. I could care less about your political affiliations, and whether I have any or not is irrelevant.

[ToadBrother]

You could be right. I haven't been paying that much attention to this particular issue.

But you should, because the issue is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Harper is violating a constitutional precept that has been one of the pillars of the way our government works since Charles II was forced to go hat in hand to a recalled Parliament to ask for many. Then, as now, the issue was fundamentally one of foreign affairs, and then, as it should be now, Parliament asserted is absolute right over the functions of the Executive.

This is why little by little, under both Tory and Liberal Governments, Parliament has been pushed off to the side. The supporters of the various governments have been so myopic, so tribal in their views, that they don't see that our democracy sinks further and further into irrelevance. The whole point of the Glorious Revolution was to put severe checks on Executive powers, which, constitutionally are extraordinarily vast. It is Parliament that ultimately has the authority over government in all things, just as the Ministers of the Crown ultimately advise the Sovereign or the Vice-regal in policy.

Edited April 13, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Moonbox]

Knowingly handing prisoners over to people that are allegedly ripping out their nails, electrocuting and sometimes killing people is just as bad as doing it ourselves.

It's right up there with burning little girl's faces off with acid.

I know in your clouded little world that Canadian soldiers are deliberately and maliciously handing prisoners off to be tortured, but even if that was the case we'd still not be on the same level as the Taliban.

You can at LEAST put up an argument as to why torturing a murderer for information could save people's lives or something, but burning a girl's face off with acid for wanting to read is as plainly evil as it gets.

[Born Free]

You can at LEAST put up an argument as to why torturing a murderer for information could save people's lives or something,

Are you condoning torture of detainees ....regardless of whether its done by Canadian military or done by the Afghans after they were caputured by Canadian soldiers?

[Bonam]

Are you condoning torture of detainees ....regardless of whether its done by Canadian military or done by the Afghans after they were caputured by Canadian soldiers?

What he is saying is that while torturing detainees may be wrong, it is not as wrong as burning girls faces with acid for wanting to read. There are degrees of right and wrong. Being right or wrong is not a binary state, it is a spectrum.

[Born Free]

What he is saying is that while torturing detainees may be wrong, it is not as wrong as burning girls faces with acid for wanting to read. There are degrees of right and wrong. Being right or wrong is not a binary state, it is a spectrum.

Let me put it this way....

-IMO there is no argument that would make the case to support torture. You are either for it or against it. If you try to make an argument on its behalf, then you must be for it.

-IMO there is no argument that would make the case to condone the burning of girls faces. You are either for it or against it. If you try to make an argument on its behalf, then you must be for it.

[eyeball]

I know in your clouded little world that Canadian soldiers are deliberately and maliciously handing prisoners off to be tortured, but even if that was the case we'd still not be on the same level as the Taliban.

It's the soldier's civilian bosses in the House of Commons that I'm referring to. The troops are just following it's orders - our order's given we elected it.

You can at LEAST put up an argument as to why torturing a murderer for information could save people's lives or something, but burning a girl's face off with acid for wanting to read is as plainly evil as it gets.

It's as evil as meddling and interfering in another people's country. Our propping up the likes Asadullah Khalid for example is no less disfiguring to Afghanistan or Canada for that matter.

Our country's beauty is only skin deep and our ugliness goes right to the bone. It wasn't always this way but somethings gone terribly wrong, like Toadbrother I think it's because we've lost or given up control of our government.

Edited April 13, 2010 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

Let me put it this way....

-IMO there is no argument that would make the case to support torture. You are either for it or against it. If you try to make an argument on its behalf, then you must be for it.

-IMO there is no argument that would make the case to condone the burning of girls faces. You are either for it or against it. If you try to make an argument on its behalf, then you must be for it.

Really? Does it have to be black and white like that? Can someone be opposed to capital punishment in most cases, yet consider it for very special circumstances?

What about abortion, can someone support abortion, yet oppose it for some circumstances...say after the 6th month?

And why can't someone be mostly opposed to torture, yet consider 'harsh' interogation techniques allowable...even as the definitions of torture are in flux...or be opposed to torture, mostly, except for the most urgent reasons?

And as far as acid goes,,,I am definately against acid in the faces of girls..but would many give a second thought about acid being flung into the faces of those who toss acid?

[Born Free]

It's the soldier's civilian bosses in the House of Commons that I'm referring too. The troops are just following it's orders - our order's given we elected it.

Some folks like to play the sleaze style of the Bush/Cheney regime. When you wish to take the PM to task over the detainee issue, you immediatly are charged with being against the troops. Some folks simply dont get it.

[Born Free]

Really? Does it have to be black and white like that?

Im afraid so Morris.

Can someone be opposed to capital punishment in most cases, yet consider it for very special circumstances?

Do you really wish to discuss capital punishment in this thread?

And why can't someone be mostly opposed to torture, yet consider 'harsh' interogation techniques allowable...even as the definitions of torture are in flux...or be opposed to torture, mostly, except for the most urgent reasons?

I know what your views are Morris but then we both know you either dont understand what the international rules are when it comes to dealing with detainess OR perhaps you just dont agree with them. If its the latter, then this becomes an entirely new discussion/debate.

What about abortion, can someone support abortion, yet oppose it for some circumstances...say after the 6th month?

Do you really want to discuss abortion in this thread?

[M.Dancer]

Do you really wish to discuss capital punishment in this thread?

Do you really want to discuss abortion in this thread?

I'm interested in discussing the foolishness of absolutes.

[Born Free]

I'm interested in discussing the foolishness of absolutes.

Think of it this way... Its like pregnancy. Either she is or isnt pregnant. It's as simple as that.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Born Free

[M.Dancer]

Think of it this way... Its like pregnancy. Either she is or isnt pregnant. It's as simple as that.

I'm not stupid enough to compare pregancy with morality.