Crazed republicans remind me of crazed atheists: they are more preoccupied with saying they dislike/disbelieve than those who actually do like/believe in God or Her Majesty or whatever.  I mean, honestly, if you don’t care, why don’t you STFU?

I swear: if Twitter didn’t exist, crazy people would go back to doing what they previously did, which was talking to their Imaginary Friends.  They should all go back to doing that.

Comments (28)

Who provides oversight for the overseers?

In this era of ombudsmen and commissioners and incessant inquiries, it is no idle question. In a time when, increasingly, gutless politicians are delegating authority for government oversight to unelected megalomaniacs, we need to consider whether we are heading down the right path. Mostly, we aren’t.

About a decade ago, when John Gomery was presiding over his circus-like inquisition into the sponsorship program in Quebec, the issue came into sharp focus. With his reckless comments to the news media, his clear bias against Jean Chretien, and his willingness to spend upwards of $100 million over two years — even hiring his daughter’s law firm — Gomery became a case study in how not to do these things.

In June 2008, the Federal Court agreed, blasting Gomery for his “preoccupation with the media” instead of fairness, for “prejudging issues” before all the evidence was in, and for wrongly assigning blame to Chretien and his former chief of staff, Jean Pelletier. Two years later, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld that scathing decision, and even ordered Stephen Harper’s government to pay some of Chretien’s legal costs.

Ann Cavoukian, Ontario’s information and privacy commissioner, should heed the lessons of Gomery. Cavoukian is the unelected narcissist who wrote a report a few weeks back about deleted e-mails in the ongoing Ontario gas-plant controversy. At the time, Cavoukian said the e-mails had been deleted “to avoid transparency and accountability.” It was “just appalling,” she said. It could even hurt the Ontario Liberals’ “ability to be re-elected,” she said.

Cavoukian, like Gomery, loved the attention that her over-the-top report received. So she dialled up the rhetoric. Immediately thereafter, the opposition also started screeching that laws had been broken and the OPP decided to investigate Cavoukian’s claims.

A few weeks later she was at it again, claiming the e-mails had been deleted to avoid “public scrutiny.” She then went on to call Chris Morley, Dalton McGuinty’s former chief of staff, “misleading,” “disingenuous” and alleged Morley had engaged in “misrepresentation.”

But, when pressed, she admitted much of what Morley had said had been “technically true.” And that she hadn’t even interviewed him to get his side of the story — not once.

Oh, and the deleted e-mails? Turns out some of them weren’t “deleted” after all.

That’s a pretty big mistake, considering what her mistake led to — headlines, subpoenas and a police investigation. Her excuse is that some unidentified functionary in government told her the e-mails had been deleted, and it was that person who got it wrong, not her. But that’s not good enough.

Cavoukian has a huge staff that is paid to weed out information. They forwarded on to her information that was not true and she used it. By her own admission, she rushed her report out the door. Most seriously, before accusing people of actual crimes, and viciously attacking them in print and on air, Cavoukian had a legal obligation to leave no stone unturned. She didn’t do that.

Instead, she (like Gomery) reminded us that, most of the time, the overseers are just as bad as those they were hired to oversee.

Or worse.

Comments (14)

From: chrisallan276@hotmail.co.uk
4:39 PM
To: Warren Kinsella

You sit are a sick individual , I really have no idea how or why you are allowed to write a column for a newspaper !

Sent from my iPhone

Comments (4)

Nice ending to an affair that I always found rather suspicious.

Will assorted Conservative (and conservative) critics now apologize to Trudeau for their attacks on him?

Of course not.

Comments (25)

Screen cap, before the two tweets were deleted:

Not the kind of thing you’d expect from a provincial quasi-judicial body, but perhaps Ann Cavoukian’s malady is spreading through the public service.

Comments (5)

Dear Masha and Nadia:

As the one-year anniversary of your trial approaches, we are writing to assure you that, around the world, people are both still thinking of you and working for your release. Although you were the most visible of the protesters, we know that there were many other young people who have suffered in the protests, about whom we are also very concerned. But, in many ways, through your imprisonment, you have come to represent them.

Many artists voiced their concern when these charges were first brought against you, we had every hope that the authorities, in dealing with you, would show some understanding, a sense of proportion, even some of the wonderful Russian sense of humour, but none of the above were forthcoming.

The impact of your shockingly unjust trial and imprisonment has spread far and wide. Especially among your fellow artists, musicians and citizens around the world, including the many parents who feel your anguish at being separated from your children. While understanding the sensitivities of protesting in a place of worship, we ask that the Russian authorities review these harsh sentences, so that you may return to your children, your families and your lives. The right to freedom of expression and dissent is a legitimate one and essential in any kind of democracy.

You have been accused of what could be described as ‘a victimless’ crime, but in our opinion, in a just society, there can be no crime where there is no identifiable ‘victim’. Your strength, bravery and fearlessness are an inspiration to us all.

Signed:

Bryan Adams, Adele, Alt-J, Laurie Anderson, Animal Collective, Anti-Flag, Arcade Fire, Arch Enemy, Archive, Joan Armatrading, Joan Baez, Beardyman, Jeff Beck, Yasiin Bey, björk, Rubén Blades, Billy Bragg, Jackson Browne, Peter Buck, Tracy Chapman, Chase & Status, The Chemical Brothers, Neneh Cherry, The Clash, Coldplay, Lily Rose Cooper, Dido, Django Django, Melissa Etheridge, Siobhan Fahey, Paloma Faith, First Aid Kit, Franz Ferdinand, Foster the People, fun., Peter Gabriel, Bob Geldof, Kim Gordon, Debbie Harry, PJ Harvey, Don Henley, The Hidden Cameras, Niall Horan, Billy Joel, Sir Elton John, Ke$ha, Angelique Kidjo, The Knife, Mark Knopfler, Tom Lehrer, Sean Lennon, Annie Lennox, Lykke Li, Sir Paul McCartney, Romy Madley-Croft, Madonna, Zayn Malik, Stephen Malkmus, Marina & The Diamonds, Johnny Marr, Massive Attack, Mike Mills, Moby, Thurston Moore, Tom Morello, Alanis Morissette, James Morrison, Graham Nash, Kate Nash, Youssou N’Dour, Karen O, Yoko Ono, Clock Opera, Ozzy Osbourne, Liam Payne, Peaches, Joe Perry, Phoenix, Rain Phoenix, Portishead, Portugal. The Man, Cat Power, Radiohead, Bonnie Raitt, Rise Against, Patti Scialfa, Scissor Sisters, Paul Simon, Sleigh Bells, Patti Smith, Esperanza Spalding, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Stewart, Sting, Michael Stipe, Harry Styles, Neil Tennant, Louis Tomlinson, Pete Townshend, K T Tunstall, U2, Eddie Vedder.

More here.

Comments (0)

So sayeth one of the stupidest politicians to walk the planet.  Well, okay, Doug, but only because you insist: we will continue to “come after” after you and your idiot brother. Heh.

Oh, and one more thing: a guy with your past probably shouldn’t be advising others to get “counselling.”

Comments (6)

…and I haven’t regretted my decision, not once.

I worked with brilliant, wonderful people. They were good to me. But I could see the writing on the wall. When I told them their biggest client was going to drop them, few at the firm believed me. But drop them it did. I left soon after.

I love the law, I love lawyers. But most of the lawyers I know are miserable. Or they say they want my life.

This amazing piece of journalism partly explains why.

Go to law school? Sure. But don’t ever go thinking you are going to be rich.

You’re not gonna be. Not anymore.

Comments (11)

Comments (14)

The revelation that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has maintained an enemies list isn’t much of a revelation, is it? I mean, if there has ever been a Canadian administration that is positively Nixonian in its style and approach, it is Stephen Harper’s.

Now, that’s not to suggest the PMO has engaged in cover-ups, payoffs and dirty deals, like the disgraced former U.S. president did. Nor should it be taken to mean that the elite crew surrounding the Conservative prime minister has turned a collective blind eye to fraud, theft and breach of trust, as Nixon did.

Oh, wait.

The ongoing Senate scandal. Right. Never mind.

Anyway, the Harper PMO kids — showing up to work every morning buffed and scrubbed, and looking very much like the bad guys in the Matrix movie series, but without the interpersonal charm — are more and more like the Nixon cabal with each passing day.

Just consider the latest count in the indictment: News Harper et al. maintain an enemies list, like Nixon did.

The existence of Harper’s enemies list was revealed last week when an e-mail sent from the PMO to ministerial aides ended up in the wrong inbox. The e-mail cheerfully requested that lists of enemy bureaucrats, as well as lists of “enemy stakeholders,” be developed for incoming ministers and their staffs.

Nixon, as historians will note, did the same thing. His list was concocted by his White House counsel, a subsequently convicted criminal named Chuck Colson.

It was variously referred to as the “Opponents List” or the “Political Enemies List,” and it contained the names of journalists and politicians who Nixon and his orcs disliked — including actor Paul Newman, whose career did not seem to be impeded by the designation.

Enemies lists, as the Harper gang are (hopefully) about to discover, are lots of fun to put together, but not so much fun to defend in the public realm. That’s because, at some point, an enemies list has an actual purpose.

It is supposed to be used. And that’s where it becomes slightly less comedic and arguably illegal.

The Nixon list certainly was. In that case, the enemies list was used to “screw” — the word used by John Dean, another White House lawyer — the president’s enemies with IRS audits, denial of federal contracts, litigation and even prosecution.

And that, of course, is when an innocuous enemies list stops being funny and becomes much more ominous.

It is a crime to use the power of the state to initiate tax audits of one’s political enemies. It is a crime to commence an administrative or legal process with the purpose of “screwing” someone the Conservative Party hates. It is a crime to prosecute a political adversary because they possess different views and priorities.

The Harper PMO, when they finally get around to concocting talking points about their enemies list, will say that (a) it was the fault of a misguided young staffer, (b) it was never acted upon, (c) the Liberals did the same thing, and (d) the sponsorship scandal. Rinse and repeat, etc.

But no one should be fooled: The Harper PMO drew up an enemies list, and they did so because they expected it to be acted upon by ministers and staffers who possess real power. If even one of them has done so — even once — they have committed a crime.

The Nixon-Harper comparisons being made by the opposition and some of us in the media are, at one level, kind of amusing. But when we pause to reflect on this latest controversy — and we should — it all becomes a lot less comical.

If you’ve ever written a letter to the editor criticizing Stephen Harper — if you’ve ever stood for office against one of his allies, or if you have participated in a grassroots campaign against one of his policies — you deserve to know if you are on that list.

And you deserve to know what, if anything, was done to you by Stephen Harper’s Nixonian PMO.

Comments (41)