I tuned into the Hockey night in Canada Saturday night catch the end of the Leafs-Habs game and catch the beginning of the Flames-Oilers. What I got instead was another ill-informed invective by Canada’s leading narrow-minded neo-con Don Cherry.
When I turned the TV on, after observing Earth Hour, David Suzuki, introducing himself as “Don Cherry’s favourite left-wing kook” was on asking Canadians to make the symbolic gesture of turning out our lights for one hour. He said you could keep on your TV tonight and watch the game. (The message was played too late for everyone east of Mountain Daylight Time Zone.)
Cherry retorted by saying that Suzuki lives in Vancouver and that he should come to Toronto saying “we are dying of cold, and he’s talking warming trend.”
This is not the first time that Cherry has flexed his scientific muscle.
Just before Christmas this past year, Hockey Night in Canada ran an interview with Boston Bruins Defenceman Andrew Ference. Ference spoke about how he initiated an environmental program for the Bruins and had recruited other players and teams into going carbon neutral for their yearly travel in something called the NHLPA Carbon Neutral Challenge. The NHL emissions average is 10 tons per player per season.
Cherry’s reaction to the interview?
He called it “sickening” adding "it's Hockey Night in Canada. And we're talking about saving the world and all that stuff.”
“Let's talk about hockey."
Good idea Don. You should stick to hockey because when it comes to environmental issues, I am going to go with the left-wing kook with the PhD instead of the high school drop out right wing nut. While most of the scientific community has stated that global warming is not only a reality but it is primarily man made, none of that matters because an obtuse former hockey player, doesn’t believe it.
Cherry in the volumes of scientific data I am sure he has to back up his opinion, must have missed the part about global warming (or climate change) that talks about extreme weather and that global warming doesn’t necessarily mean the temperature will be warmer everyday day then the day before. Global warming is also about the unusual weather patterns developing around the world which lead to extreme weather events.
In fact there is growing evidence that the continuing global warming trend could trigger the next ice age and soon.
But, enough about the truth.
Grapes like to “Cherry-pick” when it comes to talking about non-hockey issues.
In other words, no one but him is allowed to have an opinion.
Cherry has spoken at length about religion, fallen police officers, firefighters, members of the military. His rabid pro war stance and his insistence that Canada should be in Iraq with the Americans are just some of the other non-hockey topics that Cherry has discussed.
Ference shouldn’t feel bad. He is in good company. Past targets of Coach’s Corner are Europeans, Asian, Aboriginal and French Canadians and of course, players who wear visors. (You can now add environmentalists to the list). And who could forget the “socialist, left wing, pinko, commies” that make up the media in Canada.
I am not saying that Cherry can’t talk about his support for the troops or other noble causes, but while he states Canadian troops are fighting in Afghanistan for our freedom, he wants to place limits on who is entitled to that freedom and will bully, insult and suppress any dissent.
My advice to Don Cherry on how to avoid such conflicts.
Stuff a puck in it!
It's Hockey Night in Canada. Let's talk about hockey.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
WHERE TO START
This has been another one of those weeks where way too much happened to whittle down this edition of the Real Deal with Don MacNeil, so I have decided to fall back on a old concept (that’s code for crutch) and write about all of them in something I like to call the “Piecemeal with Don MacNeil.”
My Favourite Martin
While Canadian citizen Brenda Martin languished in a Mexican jail for two years, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Helena Guergis, claims she has been doing all she can to secure Martin’s release.
This week it was shown just how much the “Parliamentary Paris Hilton” has been doing (or not) for Martin.
While the Ontario woman has been sitting in jail for a couple years without charge, Guergis came without 20 kilometres of the prison Martin has been held in. But alas, Helena got sidetracked by a cocktail party and never made a promised appointed with the incarcerated Canadian.
Due to her lack of success, and a long held notion that she is in over her head, Guergis has since been taken off the case.
Brenda Martin probably hasn’t noticed the difference.
China Syndrome
Talk has begun about boycotting this summer Olympic games in Beijing. The problem is that none of the talk seems to be coming from the people that matter.
The heads of state.
Yesterday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the UK will be there. French President Nicolas Sarkozy says he wants to hear from other European leaders before he makes a decision. Poland and the Czech Republic have said their political leaders will boycott the Opening Ceremony, but I am not sure what that will accomplish. I have watched an Olympic event of two and as I recall most of the attention is on the field, not the stands.
Canada has said nothing and, maybe not coincidentally, the United States has not issued a position on the subject.
Over 100 dead in Tibet, 700 more in prison and most of country under martial law, says that Canada shouldn’t participate.
I recall something American high jumper Dwight Stones said in support of the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980:
“There's something about somebody having a party in their front yard and beating up somebody in their back yard that just doesn't wash with me.”
Roy’s Up
The one of the most publicized acts of parental induced violence since the heyday of the Barker Gang, Québec Remparts goalie Jonathan Roy, the son of hockey hall-of-famer Patrick Roy skated the length of the ice in a Major Junior Hockey League playoff game with the Chicoutimi Sagueneens and attacked, without any provocation, Sag’s netminder Bobby Nadeau.
For his part Roy, Jr. was suspended for 7 games by the QMJHL. Roy, Sr., who is also the coach and owner of the Québec Remparts, was suspended for 5. Part of St. Patrick’s punishment may have because he may have gestured to his son to skate the length of the ice and pummel Nadeau, who wanted no part of the scrap and did nothing but cover up.
This might not be the end of this as the police are investigating the incident.
I am not a fan of fighting in hockey. There are those who say fighting is a part of the game, but some of those same people say hockey needs to clamp down on “stickwork”.
That makes no sense.
Stickwork (slashing, hooking, cross checking, etc...) will get you a two minute penalty. Fighting gets you five minutes in the penalty box. Even the game doesn’t think its part of the game.
Also, there is a legal doctrine by the name of 'volenti non fit injuria’. It is a latin term that means "to a willing person, no injury is done". It’s the legal equivalent of “you mess with the bull, you get the horn”.
There is no way Nadeau could be considered a willing person.
Unwanted Advice
The Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, made history by telling a Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, on the eve of a provincial budget, what he expects the province to do with it’s money.
Duncan replied by doing almost nothing Flaherty had asked him to do.
This has been a game of political chicken as most observers feel that this is the Harper government’s strategy to lay the blame for a forecast economic downturn on Dalton McGuinty and Liberal government of Ontario.
The fiscal three ring circus was just the latest chapter in a long running feud between the federal government and the province of Ontario. A feud that had Flaherty, an Ontario MP, calling his home province “the last place in Canada to start a business” which led Duncan to muse that it was time for Flaherty to “stop this partisan nonsense and start acting like a real finance minister.”
After Flaherty’s unsolicited advice was delivered, Duncan delivered his own economic blue print and then delivered what may be eventually seen as the knockout blow.
Following the budget recitation at Queen’s Park, Dwight Duncan suggested that Flaherty is taking on the role of unofficial leader of the provincial Opposition. It was a jab at Flaherty and more importantly, a jab at John Tory. The actual leader of the opposition (despite the fact he still have a spot in the legislature).
Was it Tory, who has suffered collateral damage as a result of this “uncivil war”, who asked the Harper Gang to dial it down a notch or was it that the federal Conservative strategy has not worked in Ontario and is also not playing well in the rest of the country. Politicians, and ordinary voters, from coast-to-coast have started to wonder, “If the Conservatives will do it to them, will they do it to us, too?”
In the end, Stephen Harper may have blinked, and yesterday sent a $706-million olive branch to Ontario for community development programs, public transit projects and to recruit more police across the province.
…and the beat goes on.
My Favourite Martin
While Canadian citizen Brenda Martin languished in a Mexican jail for two years, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Helena Guergis, claims she has been doing all she can to secure Martin’s release.
This week it was shown just how much the “Parliamentary Paris Hilton” has been doing (or not) for Martin.
While the Ontario woman has been sitting in jail for a couple years without charge, Guergis came without 20 kilometres of the prison Martin has been held in. But alas, Helena got sidetracked by a cocktail party and never made a promised appointed with the incarcerated Canadian.
Due to her lack of success, and a long held notion that she is in over her head, Guergis has since been taken off the case.
Brenda Martin probably hasn’t noticed the difference.
China Syndrome
Talk has begun about boycotting this summer Olympic games in Beijing. The problem is that none of the talk seems to be coming from the people that matter.
The heads of state.
Yesterday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the UK will be there. French President Nicolas Sarkozy says he wants to hear from other European leaders before he makes a decision. Poland and the Czech Republic have said their political leaders will boycott the Opening Ceremony, but I am not sure what that will accomplish. I have watched an Olympic event of two and as I recall most of the attention is on the field, not the stands.
Canada has said nothing and, maybe not coincidentally, the United States has not issued a position on the subject.
Over 100 dead in Tibet, 700 more in prison and most of country under martial law, says that Canada shouldn’t participate.
I recall something American high jumper Dwight Stones said in support of the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980:
“There's something about somebody having a party in their front yard and beating up somebody in their back yard that just doesn't wash with me.”
Roy’s Up
The one of the most publicized acts of parental induced violence since the heyday of the Barker Gang, Québec Remparts goalie Jonathan Roy, the son of hockey hall-of-famer Patrick Roy skated the length of the ice in a Major Junior Hockey League playoff game with the Chicoutimi Sagueneens and attacked, without any provocation, Sag’s netminder Bobby Nadeau.
For his part Roy, Jr. was suspended for 7 games by the QMJHL. Roy, Sr., who is also the coach and owner of the Québec Remparts, was suspended for 5. Part of St. Patrick’s punishment may have because he may have gestured to his son to skate the length of the ice and pummel Nadeau, who wanted no part of the scrap and did nothing but cover up.
This might not be the end of this as the police are investigating the incident.
I am not a fan of fighting in hockey. There are those who say fighting is a part of the game, but some of those same people say hockey needs to clamp down on “stickwork”.
That makes no sense.
Stickwork (slashing, hooking, cross checking, etc...) will get you a two minute penalty. Fighting gets you five minutes in the penalty box. Even the game doesn’t think its part of the game.
Also, there is a legal doctrine by the name of 'volenti non fit injuria’. It is a latin term that means "to a willing person, no injury is done". It’s the legal equivalent of “you mess with the bull, you get the horn”.
There is no way Nadeau could be considered a willing person.
Unwanted Advice
The Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, made history by telling a Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, on the eve of a provincial budget, what he expects the province to do with it’s money.
Duncan replied by doing almost nothing Flaherty had asked him to do.
This has been a game of political chicken as most observers feel that this is the Harper government’s strategy to lay the blame for a forecast economic downturn on Dalton McGuinty and Liberal government of Ontario.
The fiscal three ring circus was just the latest chapter in a long running feud between the federal government and the province of Ontario. A feud that had Flaherty, an Ontario MP, calling his home province “the last place in Canada to start a business” which led Duncan to muse that it was time for Flaherty to “stop this partisan nonsense and start acting like a real finance minister.”
After Flaherty’s unsolicited advice was delivered, Duncan delivered his own economic blue print and then delivered what may be eventually seen as the knockout blow.
Following the budget recitation at Queen’s Park, Dwight Duncan suggested that Flaherty is taking on the role of unofficial leader of the provincial Opposition. It was a jab at Flaherty and more importantly, a jab at John Tory. The actual leader of the opposition (despite the fact he still have a spot in the legislature).
Was it Tory, who has suffered collateral damage as a result of this “uncivil war”, who asked the Harper Gang to dial it down a notch or was it that the federal Conservative strategy has not worked in Ontario and is also not playing well in the rest of the country. Politicians, and ordinary voters, from coast-to-coast have started to wonder, “If the Conservatives will do it to them, will they do it to us, too?”
In the end, Stephen Harper may have blinked, and yesterday sent a $706-million olive branch to Ontario for community development programs, public transit projects and to recruit more police across the province.
…and the beat goes on.
Monday, March 17, 2008
KILL THE DEATH PENALTY
A funny thing happened on the way to the gallows. Something almost miraculous occurred this past week in the Canadian House of Commons.
Former Liberal Justice Minster Irwin Cotler put forward a motion upholding the standard that the federal government "should stand consistently against the death penalty, as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world."
The motion was Cotler’s response to the Conservative government’s stance on capital punishment. They not only refused to support a United Nations resolution which calls for a global moratorium on the death penalty, the government of Canada, has said it won’t protect Canadians abroad who face the death penalty in other countries.
NDP MP Pat Martin, in a moment of clarity between politically fuelled Liberal bashing rants, voted with the official opposition and added, "if you supported that motion, you stood against the government's current practice, not seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad."
The expected retort from the Conservative benches was…expected, but lo and behold, instead of a bang, the Conservatives let the motion pass with a whimper. In fact, the vast majority of Conservative MP’s, including some senior cabinet ministers, actually supported it. 96 Conservatives voted in favour while only 17 did not. 13 Conservative MP’s did not cast a vote, including Stephen Harper.
Cotler, while introducing his motion in the Commons made particular mention of Ronald Allen Smith. The Alberta man has been on death row in Montana since 1982. He is the only Canadian citizen sitting on death row in the U.S.
The Conservative government has stated they would break with long-standing Canadian policy and refuse to seek clemency on behalf of Smith. Last fall the Department of Foreign Affairs issued a release which said Canada will no longer “seek clemency in cases in democratic countries, like the United States, where there has been a fair trial.”
Public Safety Minster Stockwell Day affirmed that stance after the vote last week saying the government will consider capital punishment cases abroad for convicted Canadians on a "case-by-case basis."
Getting back to what Irwin Cotler’s motion that the federal government "should stand consistently against the death penalty, as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world." And what Pat Martin said, that "if you supported that motion, you stood against the government's current practice, not seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad."
Ironically, Stockwell Day was one of those Conservatives that supported the motion.
Former Liberal Justice Minster Irwin Cotler put forward a motion upholding the standard that the federal government "should stand consistently against the death penalty, as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world."
The motion was Cotler’s response to the Conservative government’s stance on capital punishment. They not only refused to support a United Nations resolution which calls for a global moratorium on the death penalty, the government of Canada, has said it won’t protect Canadians abroad who face the death penalty in other countries.
NDP MP Pat Martin, in a moment of clarity between politically fuelled Liberal bashing rants, voted with the official opposition and added, "if you supported that motion, you stood against the government's current practice, not seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad."
The expected retort from the Conservative benches was…expected, but lo and behold, instead of a bang, the Conservatives let the motion pass with a whimper. In fact, the vast majority of Conservative MP’s, including some senior cabinet ministers, actually supported it. 96 Conservatives voted in favour while only 17 did not. 13 Conservative MP’s did not cast a vote, including Stephen Harper.
Cotler, while introducing his motion in the Commons made particular mention of Ronald Allen Smith. The Alberta man has been on death row in Montana since 1982. He is the only Canadian citizen sitting on death row in the U.S.
The Conservative government has stated they would break with long-standing Canadian policy and refuse to seek clemency on behalf of Smith. Last fall the Department of Foreign Affairs issued a release which said Canada will no longer “seek clemency in cases in democratic countries, like the United States, where there has been a fair trial.”
Public Safety Minster Stockwell Day affirmed that stance after the vote last week saying the government will consider capital punishment cases abroad for convicted Canadians on a "case-by-case basis."
Getting back to what Irwin Cotler’s motion that the federal government "should stand consistently against the death penalty, as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world." And what Pat Martin said, that "if you supported that motion, you stood against the government's current practice, not seeking clemency for Canadians sentenced to death abroad."
Ironically, Stockwell Day was one of those Conservatives that supported the motion.
Friday, March 14, 2008
DO AS I SAY…
Justice John Gomery was in Ottawa this week speaking out against government corruption, or the potential for it.
Gomery warned the of a growing concentration of power in the Prime Minster’s Office and that unelected officials held too much sway over the affairs of the government of Canada. He said there "is a danger to Canadian democracy and leaves the door wide open to the kind of political interference."
Gomery, as you may remember, was selected by then Prime Minister Paul Martin to investigate reports from the Auditor General Sheila Fraser that sponsorship program cash was awarded to Liberal-friendly advertising firms.
At the end of the commission, Gomery tabled a report that included 19 recommendations, including one which spoke of the problem of centralized authority in the PMO and a power base of unelected handpicked bureaucrats.
Gomery today told the Commons Government Operations Committee that he finds it “hard to swallow” that the Conservative government has all but ignored his report. That Stephen Harper has yet to implement most of the 19 recommendations made by Gomery is one thing. That fact that Harper ran a campaign in the federal election on accountability and ethics tells another story entirely.
The consolidation of power under one man and what Gomery called “a corresponding diminution of the role of members of Parliament” leads to the inevitable conclusion that Stephen Harper never wanted to be Prime Minister.
He wanted to be King!
Harper, by his actions on the very day that he was declared by Gomery to be a autocrat, does not to dispute the notion that he is a bully and will stoop to nothing to maintain his grasp on power.
He announced today that he is suing the Liberal Party for $2.5 million. Harper, in a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice claims the federal Liberal Party has “falsely and maliciously accused Mr. Harper of serious, grave libel."
It is the first time since Confederation that a Prime Minster has decided to sue his political opponents. Taking your adversaries to court. Now that’s good old fashioned despotism. The reality is that the lawsuit will likely never see the inside of a courtroom and Harper will most likely abandon the suit.
Harper initially had served not only the Liberal Party, but Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff and House Leader Ralph Goodale with notice of a potential libel action a week ago. When Dion had refused to apologize Harper said the leader of the opposition was “making the biggest mistake of his life.”
What is curious is that those individuals were not mentioned in the latest submissions to the court by Harper and his lawyer. So I can only guess that Harper feels the accusations made by the Dion, Ignatieff and Goodale were not false or malicious.
Interesting.
Gomery warned the of a growing concentration of power in the Prime Minster’s Office and that unelected officials held too much sway over the affairs of the government of Canada. He said there "is a danger to Canadian democracy and leaves the door wide open to the kind of political interference."
Gomery, as you may remember, was selected by then Prime Minister Paul Martin to investigate reports from the Auditor General Sheila Fraser that sponsorship program cash was awarded to Liberal-friendly advertising firms.
At the end of the commission, Gomery tabled a report that included 19 recommendations, including one which spoke of the problem of centralized authority in the PMO and a power base of unelected handpicked bureaucrats.
Gomery today told the Commons Government Operations Committee that he finds it “hard to swallow” that the Conservative government has all but ignored his report. That Stephen Harper has yet to implement most of the 19 recommendations made by Gomery is one thing. That fact that Harper ran a campaign in the federal election on accountability and ethics tells another story entirely.
The consolidation of power under one man and what Gomery called “a corresponding diminution of the role of members of Parliament” leads to the inevitable conclusion that Stephen Harper never wanted to be Prime Minister.
He wanted to be King!
Harper, by his actions on the very day that he was declared by Gomery to be a autocrat, does not to dispute the notion that he is a bully and will stoop to nothing to maintain his grasp on power.
He announced today that he is suing the Liberal Party for $2.5 million. Harper, in a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice claims the federal Liberal Party has “falsely and maliciously accused Mr. Harper of serious, grave libel."
It is the first time since Confederation that a Prime Minster has decided to sue his political opponents. Taking your adversaries to court. Now that’s good old fashioned despotism. The reality is that the lawsuit will likely never see the inside of a courtroom and Harper will most likely abandon the suit.
Harper initially had served not only the Liberal Party, but Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff and House Leader Ralph Goodale with notice of a potential libel action a week ago. When Dion had refused to apologize Harper said the leader of the opposition was “making the biggest mistake of his life.”
What is curious is that those individuals were not mentioned in the latest submissions to the court by Harper and his lawyer. So I can only guess that Harper feels the accusations made by the Dion, Ignatieff and Goodale were not false or malicious.
Interesting.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
MAÑANA
The saga of Brenda Martin would bring the toughest of us to tears. That is except if you are Helena Guergis and the Conservative Party of Canada.
Brenda Martin is a woman who is currently sitting in jail near Guadalajara, Mexico charged with money laundering and conspiracy relating to a criminal fraud investigation into her employer years earlier. She has been in jail for two years without trial.
Martin, a 51 year old native of Trenton, Ontario, is currently under suicide watch after the Mexican Federal Court refused this week to dismiss the charges based on a constitutional challenge.
Martin’s lawyer rightfully claimed Martin was interrogated by the Mexican Police without benefit of either a lawyer or interpreter. Even in Mexico they have civil rights and Martin’s were clearly violated.
Martin worked as a chef for a man named Alyn Richard Waage. Waage, who is from Alberta, and was later convicted in the U.S. of being the mastermind behind an Internet-based investment fraud scheme that netted almost $60 million. He fired Martin (at the request of his mother) and gave her a severance package, which Martin used to start a catering business. The federales claim Martin was laundering money. Waage, says Martin did nothing for him other than prepare his meals
Martin was so oblivious to her employers internet scam she actually invested almost half of her severance package in it.
Waage and his co-accused were extradited to the U.S. where they were tried and convicted and are now serving time in stateside correctional facilities. Martin has not been afforded such treatment by the Mexican authorities. The difference is that neither the U.S. nor Canada thinks she did anything they could charge her for and the Mexican charges related only to her alleged laundering of ill gotten gains in Mexico.
Still, the United States has found a way to get a Canadian citizen arrested in Mexico extradited to California.
It should be just as easy for the Canadian government to get Brenda Martin out of Guadalajara.
It might be easy, but the Canadian government has shown little interest in helping Canadians arrested in foreign countries. Helena Guergis, Canada’s secretary of state for foreign affairs, and an incredible oracle of the obvious, told CTV of the Martin case "it's a foreign country and she's in a foreign judicial system."
The Parliamentary Paris Hilton went on to say "Canada does not have any control over the government of Mexico or their judicial process. Any suggestion that a politician can influence a judge's decision is completely inappropriate."
In other words we (the Harper government) have done nothing and we are all out of ideas.
The fact of the matter is that Canada does have options. A formal diplomatic note of protest to the Mexican government, outlining that Brenda Martin's rights have been abused under the international treaty, signed by both countries, would likely be enough to have Martin on the first plane back to Canada.
The note would have to be written by Guergis, and she, apparently, has no interest in signing
The Harper government’s track record on the handling of Canadian nationals jailed in foreign countries is not stellar. Ronald Allen Smith sits on death row in Montana (the Harper Gang have already said they would do nothing to help him) and Mohamed Kohail has been sentenced by a Saudi court to death after a "trial" that took place in nine ten-minute segments. Kohail’s lawyers were excluded from the courtroom for eight of those.
Foreign Affairs Minster Maxime Bernier said of the Kohail case "after the appeal decision, we will evaluate the situation and look at what we can do," adding "it's too soon to presume what the appeal decision would be."
The appeal will be made in front of the same judges that convicted Kohail in the first place. Honestly, what the hell do you think the appeal decision will be?
So Brenda Martin languishes in a Mexican prison, where she has been for the last two years, convicted of nothing and two other Canadians may pay the ultimate price for the glory of Stephen Harper.
How a government can claim they love Canada, but hate Canadians is beyond me.
Brenda Martin is a woman who is currently sitting in jail near Guadalajara, Mexico charged with money laundering and conspiracy relating to a criminal fraud investigation into her employer years earlier. She has been in jail for two years without trial.
Martin, a 51 year old native of Trenton, Ontario, is currently under suicide watch after the Mexican Federal Court refused this week to dismiss the charges based on a constitutional challenge.
Martin’s lawyer rightfully claimed Martin was interrogated by the Mexican Police without benefit of either a lawyer or interpreter. Even in Mexico they have civil rights and Martin’s were clearly violated.
Martin worked as a chef for a man named Alyn Richard Waage. Waage, who is from Alberta, and was later convicted in the U.S. of being the mastermind behind an Internet-based investment fraud scheme that netted almost $60 million. He fired Martin (at the request of his mother) and gave her a severance package, which Martin used to start a catering business. The federales claim Martin was laundering money. Waage, says Martin did nothing for him other than prepare his meals
Martin was so oblivious to her employers internet scam she actually invested almost half of her severance package in it.
Waage and his co-accused were extradited to the U.S. where they were tried and convicted and are now serving time in stateside correctional facilities. Martin has not been afforded such treatment by the Mexican authorities. The difference is that neither the U.S. nor Canada thinks she did anything they could charge her for and the Mexican charges related only to her alleged laundering of ill gotten gains in Mexico.
Still, the United States has found a way to get a Canadian citizen arrested in Mexico extradited to California.
It should be just as easy for the Canadian government to get Brenda Martin out of Guadalajara.
It might be easy, but the Canadian government has shown little interest in helping Canadians arrested in foreign countries. Helena Guergis, Canada’s secretary of state for foreign affairs, and an incredible oracle of the obvious, told CTV of the Martin case "it's a foreign country and she's in a foreign judicial system."
The Parliamentary Paris Hilton went on to say "Canada does not have any control over the government of Mexico or their judicial process. Any suggestion that a politician can influence a judge's decision is completely inappropriate."
In other words we (the Harper government) have done nothing and we are all out of ideas.
The fact of the matter is that Canada does have options. A formal diplomatic note of protest to the Mexican government, outlining that Brenda Martin's rights have been abused under the international treaty, signed by both countries, would likely be enough to have Martin on the first plane back to Canada.
The note would have to be written by Guergis, and she, apparently, has no interest in signing
The Harper government’s track record on the handling of Canadian nationals jailed in foreign countries is not stellar. Ronald Allen Smith sits on death row in Montana (the Harper Gang have already said they would do nothing to help him) and Mohamed Kohail has been sentenced by a Saudi court to death after a "trial" that took place in nine ten-minute segments. Kohail’s lawyers were excluded from the courtroom for eight of those.
Foreign Affairs Minster Maxime Bernier said of the Kohail case "after the appeal decision, we will evaluate the situation and look at what we can do," adding "it's too soon to presume what the appeal decision would be."
The appeal will be made in front of the same judges that convicted Kohail in the first place. Honestly, what the hell do you think the appeal decision will be?
So Brenda Martin languishes in a Mexican prison, where she has been for the last two years, convicted of nothing and two other Canadians may pay the ultimate price for the glory of Stephen Harper.
How a government can claim they love Canada, but hate Canadians is beyond me.
Monday, March 10, 2008
SIBLING RIVALRY
Sibling rivalry is inevitable. The only sure way to avoid it is to have one child.
~Nancy Samalin,
Loving Your Child Is Not Enough
The long running friendly familial feud between Canada and the United States was reignited recently with allegations that Barack Obama was less than forthright when he said in a televised debate that he would reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement, while privately reassuring the Canadian government that his firm stance against NAFTA was ‘just for show’.
A leak on the alleged duplicity, some suspect may have come straight from the Canadian Prime Minster’s Office, has sent politicos on both sides of the border into near apoplectic fits or rage and indignation (heavy on the indignation).
Hillary Clinton’s righteous indignation is less than righteous. She accused Obama of running a “wink, wink” campaign, while she herself said she would opt out of NAFTA unless the U.S. can renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America. What she fails to mention is that she has not only been a proponent of the deal in the past, but that it was her husband who signed the deal in the first place.
In Canada, NAFTA-gate has consumed the House of Commons as it consumed Barack Obama chances of winning the Ohio Primary. The Opposition is calling for head of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, fingering him as a free trade “Deep Throat” and accusing the Conservative Government of Prime Minster Stephen Harper of trying to interfere in the politics of friendly neighbours to the south.
This wouldn’t be the first time a little cross border campaigning has gone on. It was rumoured that John F. Kennedy detested Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker so intensely that JFK torpedoed “The Chief” in the 1963 Canadian Federal Election, which Diefenbaker lost.
And there is also that whole War of 1812 thing. They burned down the Upper Canada Legislature, we torched the White House.
We’ll call that a draw.
This latest encroachment by Canadians into American politics has conspiracy theorists buzzing. Was the Harper Gang trying to give a hand to the GOP? After all, both the governing Conservative Party of Canada and the U.S. Republican Party are members of what is called the International Democrat Union (a sort of right wing support group).
What would Brother John Birch think of that?
Maybe the Canadian Conservatives figured why not? If the Liberal Party of Canada can have Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean as keynote speaker at their leadership convention, why can’t the “Cons” channel Don Segretti and the Watergate crew and try to “Edmund Muskie” Obama. Does anyone remember the infamous “Canuck Letter”? (Coincidentally, Segretti did work for John McCain in as co-chair in Orange County, California during McCain's ill-fated 2000 campaign.)
Back to NAFTA-gate, the PM says he will get to the bottom of this, though some doubt the pledge made by a leader, who in same week his right hand man was alleged to have attempted to take the Obama campaign out at the knees, the PM himself was accused of trying to bribe a dying man for a vote.
It is like asking Richard Nixon to chair the Watergate hearings.
Maybe the Yanks are just getting their comeuppance? Canadians long ago tired of being the whipping boy for the Excited States of America. Great White North jokes and talk of pet moose and igloo accommodations have long since grown stale. Yet it hasn’t stopped our politicians from dumping on Americans from a dizzying height. In the last Canadian federal election you would have thought that former PM Paul Martin was running against George W. Bush, not Stephen Harper, and the chief of staff of Martin’s predecessor, Jean Chrétien, referred to Dubya as “a moron” and got canned for her lack of discretion.
Pierre Trudeau, whom Nixon called a name that shouldn’t be repeated in polite society, once said of the U.S. that “living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast…one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
Maybe this is just a case of grunting back?
Canadians have, over time, come to realize more and more the only thing, without a doubt, they have in common with the United States is a common border. We disagree on a wide range of issues, from medicinal marijuana and same sex marriage, universal healthcare and the war in Iraq. Canadians do get along with their Americans neighbours, for the most part, but don’t necessarily agree with everything going on across their southern boundary. However, when it comes to talk of top level leaks potentially designed to influence the outcome of an external democratic process, even the most fervent Canadians patriot must bristle at the thought of our political interference in a foreign country.
Well, at least one we aren’t at war with.
~Nancy Samalin,
Loving Your Child Is Not Enough
The long running friendly familial feud between Canada and the United States was reignited recently with allegations that Barack Obama was less than forthright when he said in a televised debate that he would reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement, while privately reassuring the Canadian government that his firm stance against NAFTA was ‘just for show’.
A leak on the alleged duplicity, some suspect may have come straight from the Canadian Prime Minster’s Office, has sent politicos on both sides of the border into near apoplectic fits or rage and indignation (heavy on the indignation).
Hillary Clinton’s righteous indignation is less than righteous. She accused Obama of running a “wink, wink” campaign, while she herself said she would opt out of NAFTA unless the U.S. can renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America. What she fails to mention is that she has not only been a proponent of the deal in the past, but that it was her husband who signed the deal in the first place.
In Canada, NAFTA-gate has consumed the House of Commons as it consumed Barack Obama chances of winning the Ohio Primary. The Opposition is calling for head of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, fingering him as a free trade “Deep Throat” and accusing the Conservative Government of Prime Minster Stephen Harper of trying to interfere in the politics of friendly neighbours to the south.
This wouldn’t be the first time a little cross border campaigning has gone on. It was rumoured that John F. Kennedy detested Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker so intensely that JFK torpedoed “The Chief” in the 1963 Canadian Federal Election, which Diefenbaker lost.
And there is also that whole War of 1812 thing. They burned down the Upper Canada Legislature, we torched the White House.
We’ll call that a draw.
This latest encroachment by Canadians into American politics has conspiracy theorists buzzing. Was the Harper Gang trying to give a hand to the GOP? After all, both the governing Conservative Party of Canada and the U.S. Republican Party are members of what is called the International Democrat Union (a sort of right wing support group).
What would Brother John Birch think of that?
Maybe the Canadian Conservatives figured why not? If the Liberal Party of Canada can have Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean as keynote speaker at their leadership convention, why can’t the “Cons” channel Don Segretti and the Watergate crew and try to “Edmund Muskie” Obama. Does anyone remember the infamous “Canuck Letter”? (Coincidentally, Segretti did work for John McCain in as co-chair in Orange County, California during McCain's ill-fated 2000 campaign.)
Back to NAFTA-gate, the PM says he will get to the bottom of this, though some doubt the pledge made by a leader, who in same week his right hand man was alleged to have attempted to take the Obama campaign out at the knees, the PM himself was accused of trying to bribe a dying man for a vote.
It is like asking Richard Nixon to chair the Watergate hearings.
Maybe the Yanks are just getting their comeuppance? Canadians long ago tired of being the whipping boy for the Excited States of America. Great White North jokes and talk of pet moose and igloo accommodations have long since grown stale. Yet it hasn’t stopped our politicians from dumping on Americans from a dizzying height. In the last Canadian federal election you would have thought that former PM Paul Martin was running against George W. Bush, not Stephen Harper, and the chief of staff of Martin’s predecessor, Jean Chrétien, referred to Dubya as “a moron” and got canned for her lack of discretion.
Pierre Trudeau, whom Nixon called a name that shouldn’t be repeated in polite society, once said of the U.S. that “living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast…one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
Maybe this is just a case of grunting back?
Canadians have, over time, come to realize more and more the only thing, without a doubt, they have in common with the United States is a common border. We disagree on a wide range of issues, from medicinal marijuana and same sex marriage, universal healthcare and the war in Iraq. Canadians do get along with their Americans neighbours, for the most part, but don’t necessarily agree with everything going on across their southern boundary. However, when it comes to talk of top level leaks potentially designed to influence the outcome of an external democratic process, even the most fervent Canadians patriot must bristle at the thought of our political interference in a foreign country.
Well, at least one we aren’t at war with.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
'TIS NOT TOO LATE TO BUILD A BETTER WORLD
Tommy Douglas must be spinning in his grave like a lathe.
The former leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, chosen as the Greatest Canadian of all-time, would be shocked to find out what his party under Jack Layton has devolved into.
This week the New Democratic Party of Canada has decided it will not support an Ethics Committee investigation into the Chuck Cadman Affair. Cadman, as you may remember, was offered a bribe, according to his wife, daughter and son-in-law, of a million dollar life insurance policy as he lay on his death bed in exchange for his vote in the House of Commons that would have hastened the end of the Paul Martin Liberal government back in May 2005.
The Conservatives, who the Cadman family say made the improper advance to buy Chuck Cadman’s soul, have denied that they did nothing but offer a man, with weeks to live, a chance to join a party that once shunned him, and help him in an election. What the Conservative fail to realize, or are refuse to acknowledge, is that Cadman didn’t need their help to get elected in the first place and that an election would have ended shortly after Cadman would have been dead.
To paraphrase a question asked by former U.S. Senator Howard Baker in the Watergate hearing "what did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it" is something for Stephen Harper to answer but what jack Layton should be mindful of is something else Senator Baker said on subject of Watergate.”
“It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.”
Pat Martin, an NDP representative on the House of Commons Ethics Committee, says the Cadman affair is not “a good fit for the ethics committee” and that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should investigate.
Pat Martin and the NDP may be the last people who still have faith in the Mounties. The Liberals have also asked the RCMP to look into the matter as well, but have also proposed it go to the Ethics Committee. The Bloc Québecois support the Liberals but Jack Layton and the Conservatives oppose public committee hearings into allegations of bribery leveled against the prime minister.
The Cons motives are obvious. The same could be said about the Liberals and Bloc but the puzzling thing to some is why the Dippers aren’t willing to get to go along.
The conventional wisdom has the NDP in league with the Harper Gang in trying to silence the Chuck Cadman Affair, because they are afraid the only beneficiary, politically, of the whole scandal will be the Liberal Party and the New Democrats would rather be complicit in a cover-up than risk being hurt politically.
Pretty strong language, I agree, but then again it’s a pretty strong topic. This has the makings of the greatest Canadian political scandal since the Pacific Scandal that brought the end to the first Conservative government of John A. Macdonald.
So the question (again) is why is Jack Layton running interference for Stephen Harper? If the answer turns out to be for purely personal partisan gain than Layton and Martin have hands as dirty as they allege the Harper Gang’s are.
Also the NDP are coming off a bribery scandal their own. One where they had to apologize in the House of Commons and pay a cash settlement to a Liberal candidate in the last election that they accuse of trying to bribe one of his rivals. The story was a complete fabrication by a NDP candidate and the party paid a heavy price, both financially, and what would be more important to Tommy Douglas, to their reputation as being the conscious of the commons.
It might be something they want to avoid as the Cadman Affair may do collateral damage to Jack Layton’s political objectives.
Tommy once said something that Jack Layton and Pat Martin should take to heart.
“Man can now fly in the air like a bird, swim under the ocean like a fish, he can burrow into the ground like a mole. Now if only he could walk the earth like a man, this would be paradise.”
The former leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, chosen as the Greatest Canadian of all-time, would be shocked to find out what his party under Jack Layton has devolved into.
This week the New Democratic Party of Canada has decided it will not support an Ethics Committee investigation into the Chuck Cadman Affair. Cadman, as you may remember, was offered a bribe, according to his wife, daughter and son-in-law, of a million dollar life insurance policy as he lay on his death bed in exchange for his vote in the House of Commons that would have hastened the end of the Paul Martin Liberal government back in May 2005.
The Conservatives, who the Cadman family say made the improper advance to buy Chuck Cadman’s soul, have denied that they did nothing but offer a man, with weeks to live, a chance to join a party that once shunned him, and help him in an election. What the Conservative fail to realize, or are refuse to acknowledge, is that Cadman didn’t need their help to get elected in the first place and that an election would have ended shortly after Cadman would have been dead.
To paraphrase a question asked by former U.S. Senator Howard Baker in the Watergate hearing "what did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it" is something for Stephen Harper to answer but what jack Layton should be mindful of is something else Senator Baker said on subject of Watergate.”
“It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble.”
Pat Martin, an NDP representative on the House of Commons Ethics Committee, says the Cadman affair is not “a good fit for the ethics committee” and that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should investigate.
Pat Martin and the NDP may be the last people who still have faith in the Mounties. The Liberals have also asked the RCMP to look into the matter as well, but have also proposed it go to the Ethics Committee. The Bloc Québecois support the Liberals but Jack Layton and the Conservatives oppose public committee hearings into allegations of bribery leveled against the prime minister.
The Cons motives are obvious. The same could be said about the Liberals and Bloc but the puzzling thing to some is why the Dippers aren’t willing to get to go along.
The conventional wisdom has the NDP in league with the Harper Gang in trying to silence the Chuck Cadman Affair, because they are afraid the only beneficiary, politically, of the whole scandal will be the Liberal Party and the New Democrats would rather be complicit in a cover-up than risk being hurt politically.
Pretty strong language, I agree, but then again it’s a pretty strong topic. This has the makings of the greatest Canadian political scandal since the Pacific Scandal that brought the end to the first Conservative government of John A. Macdonald.
So the question (again) is why is Jack Layton running interference for Stephen Harper? If the answer turns out to be for purely personal partisan gain than Layton and Martin have hands as dirty as they allege the Harper Gang’s are.
Also the NDP are coming off a bribery scandal their own. One where they had to apologize in the House of Commons and pay a cash settlement to a Liberal candidate in the last election that they accuse of trying to bribe one of his rivals. The story was a complete fabrication by a NDP candidate and the party paid a heavy price, both financially, and what would be more important to Tommy Douglas, to their reputation as being the conscious of the commons.
It might be something they want to avoid as the Cadman Affair may do collateral damage to Jack Layton’s political objectives.
Tommy once said something that Jack Layton and Pat Martin should take to heart.
“Man can now fly in the air like a bird, swim under the ocean like a fish, he can burrow into the ground like a mole. Now if only he could walk the earth like a man, this would be paradise.”
Monday, March 3, 2008
THE BALLAD OF CHUCK CADMAN
In Roman times, when a fellow tried to bribe a public official, they would cut off his nose, sew him in a bag with a wild animal, and throw that bag in the river.
~Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner), The Untouchables
The Conservatives have really stepped in it this time. The Harper Gang has been getting dizzy trying to spin away the story that Stephen Harper may have personally approved an attempt to bribe a dying man.
Nothing has been proven yet, but then again not all the particulars are known. What we do know doesn’t make the Conservative looked like the party of accountability and transparency they claim to be.
What we do know is that the late Chuck Cadman’s wife Dona says her husband told her he was offered a $1 million life insurance policy in exchange for his vote in a May 2005 confidence motion in the Commons. Cadman had gone from an Independent Member of Parliament, dumped by the Conservatives shortly before the 2004 election, to the man who held the fate of Parliament in his hands in May 2005. What we know about Chuck Cadman suggests that Stephen Harper was essentially trying to buy Cadman’s soul and Chuck told him to stuff it. Cadman voted with the Liberals and the Paul Martin government survived six more months. He didn’t survive to see the next election as Chuck Cadman succumbed to cancer in July 2005.
We also know Stephen Harper has sharply contradicted himself since the revelations of the Conservative carrot dangled in front of Cadman. Harper claimed after the story first broke that there was “absolutely no truth” that an offer as made to Cadman. Too bad really, because the next day there was tape of Stephen Harper from a 2005 interview saying the exact opposite explaining, on the tape, that he gave the go-ahead to people “legitimately representing the party” to offer Cadman “to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.”
Smoke detectors should have gone off from Stephen Harper’s pants catching fire.
When the lie didn’t work, the Cons began to invoke the good name of Chuck Cadman, citing an interview by Cadman the day of the crucial 2005 vote where he said he was offered a chance to get the Conservative nomination in the his riding uncontested and that “there was no offers on the table up til that point about anything from any party."
James Moore, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, said in the Commons that “Cadman himself said, ‘There were no offers.’ I hope the Liberals can accept Chuck Cadman's word, because we do.” (And who would else would you trust to uphold the honour of the government but a junior member of a second tier ministry. James Moore, meet Rona Ambrose.)
One problem with what Moore says it is not exactly what Chuck said. But it’s the nothing compared to the answer given when Stephen Harper was asked if he was accusing Dona Cadman, Chuck’s widow, and one of Harper’s Conservative candidates in a Vancouver area riding, of lying.
Harper said nothing!
In fact the PM never left his seat to even offer a weak explanation. With Stephen Harper caught red-handed and his minions unable to spin out of the scandal, the Conservatives came up with another ploy.
They assert the taped interview with Stephen Harper was edited.
James Moore claims the tape was doctored and demanded the full unedited tape. The publisher of the book the revelations are exposed in says the tape is unedited and the author/reporter who was asking the questions of Harper says he turned the tape off for a brief time when Harper, who was doing the interview in Chuck Cadman’s driveway, went back to his car to get something. But I guess after the Germant Grewal episode, no party would know better than the Conservatives what an edited tape would sound like.
As I wrote at the beginning of this, all the facts aren’t in but if the allegations prove out it will be hard for Stephen Harper to save his nose because he maybe too busy covering his ass.
~Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner), The Untouchables
The Conservatives have really stepped in it this time. The Harper Gang has been getting dizzy trying to spin away the story that Stephen Harper may have personally approved an attempt to bribe a dying man.
Nothing has been proven yet, but then again not all the particulars are known. What we do know doesn’t make the Conservative looked like the party of accountability and transparency they claim to be.
What we do know is that the late Chuck Cadman’s wife Dona says her husband told her he was offered a $1 million life insurance policy in exchange for his vote in a May 2005 confidence motion in the Commons. Cadman had gone from an Independent Member of Parliament, dumped by the Conservatives shortly before the 2004 election, to the man who held the fate of Parliament in his hands in May 2005. What we know about Chuck Cadman suggests that Stephen Harper was essentially trying to buy Cadman’s soul and Chuck told him to stuff it. Cadman voted with the Liberals and the Paul Martin government survived six more months. He didn’t survive to see the next election as Chuck Cadman succumbed to cancer in July 2005.
We also know Stephen Harper has sharply contradicted himself since the revelations of the Conservative carrot dangled in front of Cadman. Harper claimed after the story first broke that there was “absolutely no truth” that an offer as made to Cadman. Too bad really, because the next day there was tape of Stephen Harper from a 2005 interview saying the exact opposite explaining, on the tape, that he gave the go-ahead to people “legitimately representing the party” to offer Cadman “to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.”
Smoke detectors should have gone off from Stephen Harper’s pants catching fire.
When the lie didn’t work, the Cons began to invoke the good name of Chuck Cadman, citing an interview by Cadman the day of the crucial 2005 vote where he said he was offered a chance to get the Conservative nomination in the his riding uncontested and that “there was no offers on the table up til that point about anything from any party."
James Moore, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, said in the Commons that “Cadman himself said, ‘There were no offers.’ I hope the Liberals can accept Chuck Cadman's word, because we do.” (And who would else would you trust to uphold the honour of the government but a junior member of a second tier ministry. James Moore, meet Rona Ambrose.)
One problem with what Moore says it is not exactly what Chuck said. But it’s the nothing compared to the answer given when Stephen Harper was asked if he was accusing Dona Cadman, Chuck’s widow, and one of Harper’s Conservative candidates in a Vancouver area riding, of lying.
Harper said nothing!
In fact the PM never left his seat to even offer a weak explanation. With Stephen Harper caught red-handed and his minions unable to spin out of the scandal, the Conservatives came up with another ploy.
They assert the taped interview with Stephen Harper was edited.
James Moore claims the tape was doctored and demanded the full unedited tape. The publisher of the book the revelations are exposed in says the tape is unedited and the author/reporter who was asking the questions of Harper says he turned the tape off for a brief time when Harper, who was doing the interview in Chuck Cadman’s driveway, went back to his car to get something. But I guess after the Germant Grewal episode, no party would know better than the Conservatives what an edited tape would sound like.
As I wrote at the beginning of this, all the facts aren’t in but if the allegations prove out it will be hard for Stephen Harper to save his nose because he maybe too busy covering his ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
