"...[Kinsella is] a modern-day Machiavelli, the mastermind who ran war rooms for Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty... He's the ultimate political insider... [The War Room] has plenty of fascinating insights and is a must-read for political junkies."
- The Toronto Sun
- The National Post
- Tom Flanagan, The Literary Review of Canada
- The Hill Times
- The Winnipeg Free Press
- John Moore, CFRB
- John Oakley, AM640
- John Wright, Ipsos, CFRB
- Charles Adler, Adler Online
- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD
- Ken Rockburn, CPAC
...at the Freedom at Depth event at Labatt House. From right, the Strategic Counsel's Peter Donolo, the Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, and an unidentified crazy person.
The view from Warren's window at the Chateau Laurier. If you look very carefully, you will see Harper Reformatories inside the Langevin Block quietly emailing their CVs to Workopolis.
...as it were.
I am staying at that venerable old dowager, the Chateau Laurier, here to give a speech or something, and I spy this morning's Hill Times. Therein, Powers says something about me and a T-shirt. I respond. It all goes downhill from there.
Bought some amazing dub last night at the Black Tomato, by the way. It's a long story.
Tim, I have an Iggy Mania T-shirt, size XXXL, all ready for you. I’d give it to you right now, but I’m concerned it’d fall into your gullet and choke you, what with all the inane yammering you’re doing.
And yammering is what you are doing, my old friend, and I can understand why. Here’s why, in 10 pithy words, which can also fit neatly onto the front of a T-shirt: "Michael Ignatieff is Going To Hand Stephen Harper His Ass.” (I shouldn’t use the word “ass” in a family newspaper like the one you now grasp in your sweaty maulers, Tim, but I have a point to make.)
My point is this: the Conservative Party is immolating. It is falling apart. The once impressive coalition that Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay crafted, some years back, is in big, big trouble. If you doubt that, my Newfoundland chum, let’s just do a cursory summary of the past week’s events, shall we?
•Ignatieff is ahead in national opinion polls, and is getting way ahead in places like Ontario, and Quebec and British Columbia. Most of that increased support is coming right out of Conservatives backsides. It’s fun to watch.
•Brian Mulroney (the Progressive Conservative guy who won you big back-toback majorities), is being treated like dirt by Stephen Harper (the unreconstructed Reformer who couldn’t win a majority if his life depended on it). Half of your caucus members are livid, and still admire Mulroney, whilst the other half are livid, because they still hate him. The right, once united, is united no more.
•Harper, whose inner circle has lost some of its brightest minds, and whose political judgment is now questioned by members of his Cabinet and caucus—has to hire Americans to get himself on Fox TV (to what purpose, we know not why). Ignatieff, meanwhile, can pick up the phone and meet with the most senior members of the Obama administration without shelling out a red cent.
•The Liberals are about to wipe out their debt, and are energetically getting ready for an election. The Reformers-cum-Conservatives? Dejected, dispirited, divided. They’ve got money, sure, but so did Ross Perot. And he didn’t get elected president, did he? Nope.
I could go on, Powers, but you get the point. Just in the past week, your party has been beaten, battered and bruised. And that’s not even counting what took place before the Easter break.
You can make fun of my Iggy Mania T-shirt as much as you like. But in your quiet, private moments, I’m willing to bet you fantasize about how it would look on you, you big lug.
So there we were, up at the cabin, and - all of a sudden - I heard this huge wooshing sound heading our way. It sounded like a big wave or something. It was massive.
The eldest and the youngest heard it then, too. The sky got abruptly dark, and the trees started bending towards the East. One moment, calm water; the next, whitecaps. "Dad, look!"
Down in the middle of the lake, someone was in a tiny outboard, motoring as fast as they could, trying to stay ahead of the weather. We waved and yelled at them to come and dock at our place until the worst of it was over, but they kept going. Not a decision I would have made.
The youngest was scared, by that point, and covered his ears as the storm hit. We told him not to worry, it would pass.
Then the power went out, and it stayed out.
That was Saturday night up at the cabin. The two of them played Monopoly by flashlight until bedtime, and I fell asleep in my chair, wondering if that boater had gotten home safely. I hope so.
We left early this morning, 'cause the power was still out. No sign of the boater.
Back in wireless range, however, I had a momentary desire to turn the van around and head back to the woods. Sometimes, that seems to be the only thing that makes sense, you know?
Up to Ottawa tonight. Out of such storms, political careers are made and lost.
I love this Andrew Steele column, and all of the fun metaphors in it. Steele has become one of the finest political bloggers in the country, right alongside...Rob Silver, Tim Powers, Doug Bell and Norm Spector. (Whew.)
Anyway. Andrew's point, therein, is typically bang-on: for the NDP's Jack Layton (you remember him, don't you?) to go from doe-eyed suitor just a few weeks ago - to his current depiction of Glenn Close, in a made-in-Canada political remake of Fatal Attraction - is plain old ridiculous. It's stupid. It's absurd, but it's also plenty funny to observe.
And, by all means, keep at it, Jack. If you prop up the drifting, divided, disagreeable, discredited regime of Stephen Harper - doing the very thing you said you'd never, ever do, good golly - you're done. Stick in a fork, etc. You'll be gone, as in, Elvis-has-left-the-building gone.
If you persist - and if it's mutually-convenient - we'll send a few buses over to pick up what's left of your caucus and your core vote. None of them will be with you after this latest stunt, believe me.
Oh, and you may want to give Fatal Attraction a spin this weekend, on your tofu-powered VCR system, or whatever. As the sharp-eyed Andrew Steele would likely observe, it doesn't end very well for Glenn Close.
...many of you think the economic demise of traditional media heralds a new dawn for Twitterers and Flickrers and bloggerers. Not so fast, says Media Relations In Canada.
Nice site, by the way. Which raises another question: besides Bourrie, is there a one-stop-shopping blogsite for journalists in Canada? If there is, I am unaware of it. If there isn't, there should be.
...and I'm proud to be his friend, hate bloggers. (Proud. I hope that makes you sneeze uncontrollably, and then pop a head valve.)
The trial judge, by the by, is the same judge we had in Macdonald v. Kinsella and CBC. We're still awaiting her decision.
Congrats, Warman! I look forward to you obtaining the same result in this.
Top court refuses to hear appeal of hate speech defamation award (SCOC-Fromm-Defamation)
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 23, 2009 10:47
OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal by self-styled free-speech crusader Paul Fromm against a $30,000 defamation penalty.
Fromm was seeking to overturn lower court rulings that found he maliciously defamed a former investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Fromm's web postings were directed at Richard Warman, a lawyer who has made a career of going after hate speech on the Internet.
Fromm didn't dispute that he'd labelled Warman a `high priest of censorship' - among other things - but argued it was fair comment and without malice.
Last December, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a trial award of $30,000 against Fromm, and added $10,000 in legal costs.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Fromm's appeal and, as is usual with leaves to appeal, provided no reasons.
(The Canadian Press)
INDEX: JUSTICE POLITICS SOCIAL
The news of Robert Fowler’s release is wonderful and, to many, unexpected. When I lived in Ottawa, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Fowler a few times through the LeBlanc family, and – as you’ve been reading – he truly is an extraordinary public servant.
So his release, and that of his colleague Louis Guay, is the kind of good news that has been in very short supply so far this year. We needed it.
But, in listening/reading the many reports about al-Qaeda’s decision to free Messrs. Fowler and Guay, it’s difficult to shake one question that – in all likelihood – will never be fully answered for those us who don’t, say, toil daily in the Pearson Building on Sussex Drive. That question is this: how does one negotiate successfully with al-Qaeda? Should one, even through intermediaries?
The very notion of talking to al-Qaeda, as someone apparently did in the Fowler case, is highly controversial. Governments paying al-Qaeda ransom money – as Stephen Harper denied in respect of Canada, but which (in a clever bit of parsing) he seemed to suggest happened in respect of the government in Mali - is also considered to be a terrible mistake, too. It’s axiomatic: paying money to terrorist movements enables them to commit more acts of terror, including kidnappings. Negotiating with them, meanwhile, legitimizes them. (Whilst repeatedly smearing one of the world’s great religions – for which some Canadians, sadly, are notorious – is also a bad strategy.)
My first book attempted to advance the preposterous theory that outlaw Islamic states were funding terrorism to strike against North Americans, on North American soil and elsewhere (I say “preposterous” facetiously, because – when Unholy Alliances came out in 1992 – a couple of Southam News correspondents excoriated the book, and me, for exaggerating the extent and nature of the Islamist threat; subsequent events perhaps suggest they were hasty in their judgments). That said, I do not even possess a fraction of the knowledge of others who have written about al-Qaeda and its ilk. This morning, then, I only have questions.
For example: should we engage in “dialogue” with one of the most notorious criminal organizations of this century, or the last one? Can we? On the one hand, it is beyond debate that treating murderers as legitimate, as governmental equals, is clearly fraught with peril (cf. Neville Chamberlain). But, on the other hand, I can’t recall an instance where a terrorist movement has ever been defeated – fully, irrevocably – without some measure of “dialogue” (cf., the IRA, Fatah, etc., etc.).
So what to do, fellow Canadians? As I say, I’m not sure. Have our governments quietly changed the West's collective approach to the serial murders in al-Qaeda, without even consulting with the rest of us?
If the answer to that question is yes, I cling to the slender hope that al-Qaeda has changed its collective approach to us, too. If they haven't, it’s not hard to visualize its leadership in a cave somewhere, laughing uproariously at we Canadians.
And counting our money.
Stephen Harper, November 9, 2007: "I think it will be incumbent upon myself and also upon members of the government not to have dealings with Mr. Mulroney until this issue is resolved."
Peter MacKay, April 22, 2009: "Look, from my perspective, Mr. Mulroney was a tremendous prime minister for this country. He accomplished a number of notable historic positive changes and contributions; and in my view, he will always be a member of the Conservative Party of Canada...Mr. Mulroney has stated that he's a conservative; I believe he's a conservative. I believe that -- you know, we honour the commitment of individuals who enter public life. And -- you know, I'm very proud of the things that he accomplished during his time in office."
• Opposition leader gets more senior folks to meet with him in Obama's Washington than does the putative Prime Minister of Canada – and the former doesn’t have to use taxpayer dollars to lobby for appearances on Fox News.
• Two-term majority Conservative leader gets treated like dirt by the current minority Conservative leader – and the latter’s caucus starts to rebel, big time.
• Principal opponent about to wipe out its debt after just a few months of effort – while the governing party is starting to muse out loud that its own supreme leader should take “a walk in the snow.”
Have a nice caucus meeting, boys and girls.
Bjorn and I saw KOL at the Opera House, not so long ago, with about 50 other people. That's it. When they played 'California Waiting,' I could've died right there, and felt I'd supped on lightning with the gods.
Fast forward to a few years later, to this past November, when Bjorn and I snuck into the Kool Haus through a back door to see the brothers Followill, and it felt all wrong: sold out with 2,200 people, most of them looking like they'd borrowed Daddy's car to get in from what one resident called Misery-sauga.
And then, tonight - with Rob and Jeff - we witnessed sixteen thousand jocks and cheerleaders troop in to see 'em at the ACC...and it felt even wronger. God, no! Is this what happens when you win a Grammy?
But the guys were just like they were at the Opera House, way back when - shy, polite, themselves. (But better musicians. Big time.)
To celebrate their presence in town, I bought a Fender acoustic-electric thing today. 'California Waiting,' here we come.
It will send the hate blogs into spit-flecked rage, naturally, but I cannot tell you how encouraged I am to see another Kinsella - one with whom I am not related, but perhaps in the distant past, in some quaint moss-covered medieval Irish village - using every legal means at his disposal to oppose a political opponent's smears and calumny. Good on him; I hope he wins.
I once wrote a legal brief about the history of libel - which was approvingly quoted by a Supreme Court justice, no less, but that's a story for another day - and noted that the laws of libel were developed to prevent people from settling contentious disputes in the old-fashioned way, ie., with muskets and duels and (perhaps) shilelaghs.
Personally, I reckon there are many days when a musket sounds like a very good idea indeed. But we can only play the legal hand we are dealt, I suppose.
B.C. Liberal insider demands apology from NDP over corruption allegations
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 21, 2009 15:53
VANCOUVER - A controversial Liberal insider whose name has surfaced at the long-running B.C. legislature raid trial says the NDP are defaming him in their effort to win next month's election.
Patrick Kinsella's lawyer has sent a letter to the NDP, saying the allegations made about him and his involvement in the government sale of B.C. Rail are defamatory, malicious and false.
It's the first time Kinsella has responded to the allegation that he received $300,000 from the Liberals to help sell the Crown railway, while also collecting money from the eventual buyer and B.C. Rail itself.
The suggestion has prompted a feeding frenzy by the New Democrats in the legislature and on the campaign trail, with attorney general critic Leonard Krog demanding an RCMP investigation of Kinsella's role in the deal.
The letter from Kinsella's lawyer says he did not receive any money from the government, and demands a ``clear and unqualified'' apology within three days.
Leader Carole James says she's not going to back down from holding the Liberals and Kinsella accountable, while the Liberals have declined to respond to allegations, saying the case is before the courts.
INDEX: JUSTICE POLITICS TRANSPORT
• Paging Payola Picasso: BCL, and National Newswatch, catch the Conservative Party aggregator in a fib. Quite a lot of that sort of thing happens on that web site, for those few innocents who pay attention to race car boy anymore.
• Correspondent-Cuddle Call: Dan Gardner, on a book-writing leave of absence from the Citizen, is one of the few members of the commentariat who forces me to examine my hodge-podge of conventional wisdoms, on stuff like law enforcement, on cognition, on our fundamental freedoms. This morning, he has some depressing statistics about the demise of newspapering, all worth considering.
• Blemished Backdoor Bailout: The linked Star report is not fair, at all, to Rogers’ Phil Lind. Contrary to what is reported, Lind excoriated the networks' lobby for fee-for-carriage when he appeared before MPs, calling it a “backdoor bailout,” because it is. Lind, who is a smart man, knows that if the Harper regime approves the scheme, the ultimate cost will be borne by you and me.
• Magnificent MoBay Miracle: Stephen Harper was right to applaud Jamaica, and Jamaicans, for the speedy and effective end to that hijacking drama on the tarmac in Montego Bay yesterday. If you have been to MoBay’s airport - which we have, quite a few times - you’ll wonder how this ever happened: the place is modern, clean and very, very security-conscious. That said, it was a happy ending for many Canadians, and that’s what matters most.
• Warren’s Web Warning: Some big changes are coming to both me and this web site. What kind of changes? All will be revealed, in due course. Anyone who has spoken to me over the past six months won’t be at all surprised, however. "Fed up" does not begin to describe it. Stay tuned, as they say.
Our eldest son, who is MVP and sharp as a proverbial tack, was spinning Dillinger Four's 'Doublewhiskeycokenoice' (1998) and, a few seconds in, declared that Green Day had ripped the Minneapolis punk geniuses off with 'American Idiot' (2005).
Click on the respective band snapshots, and decide for yourself. But my son, who is a genius, is right.
As MPs return to Parliament Hill from a two-week break, the Hill Times has a story on the growing chasm in the Reformatory caucus - as do others.
Here's a repeat of the video every PC-era Tory MP should see, as they get ready for this week's caucus meeting: