Silent Complicity

The more we learn about Omar Khadr, the more it becomes apparent just how badly Canada has messed this one up. Now this morning we learn that our government knew that Khadr was being mistreated but that Stephen Harper isn't going to do anything about it. I guess he wants to look "tough" in front of his Washington pals. Or something. This is the man that came to power on the slogan "stand up for Canada" and yet once again he'll sit on his hands when real courage is required. Even Australia and the UK, often considered the two most steadfast US partners in the war on terror, have brought their citizens home from Guantanamo. Now it's our turn. Bring Khadr home. If the evidence warrants it, give him a fair trial in the Canadian justice system. No torture, no kangaroo courts, no legal limbo, no bullshit.

Harper's Wonderful Precendent

Darren McEwen points out that if Harper is going to sue for libel, there are certainly no shortage of others that could do likewise.

Beating a Dead Horse

Stephane Dion, go directly to an election, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, do not abstain from confidence motions. A mediocre budget, Cadscam, Brodiegate, what does it take? Does Stephen Harper need to defecate on the flag in the middle of the House of Commons while giving the finger to a Mountie? What? The Bloc and the NDP are ready, your own people have grown impatient. You can bring down the government, Stephane, as Rob Schneider says, you can do it! I've sort of sat on a progressive fence for a long time now, but damn it, I'm so tempted to explicitly join the NDP or the Greens in large part to register my dissatisfaction with this foot-dragging and equivocation.

Chuck was no cad, man

The story coming out now about the bribe allegedly offered to Chuck Cadman to bring down the Martin government back in 2005 looks bad for the Conservatives to say the least. The explanation offered up yesterday by Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley seems, well, hard to believe. It was well known in 2005 that Cadman was very seriously ill with cancer, at some points it was unclear whether he would be well enough to make it into parliament for the vote. Why then would Flanagan and Finley offer to help Cadman with a riding nomination? Cadman died within a couple months of the vote, I cannot imagine that 1) Flanagan and Finley didn't appreciate or couldn't find out how serious Cadman's condition was, and 2) that they really thought that his priority at that point was to win another election given his health.

Harper, Flanagan, and Finley, I call bullshit.

Endangered Species: East Coast Conservatives

Now I don't doubt that there may always be East Coast conservatives, but as for Conservatives? After Harper calling the people of the region a bunch of lazy gets, the royalties fiasco, the Casey kerfluffle and Peter MacKay hugging the neighbour's dog it's no surprise that something like this would happen.

I was sort of among those who originally saw Elizabeth May's run at Central Nova as quixotic. The way things are going, it could prove to be visionary.

What to fight an election on

The opposition looks ready to go to the polls over Afghanistan and/or the pretend medical isotope crisis, but now Harper's attack chipmunk, Peter Van Loan and Rob Nicholson are issuing an ultimatum that the senate pass the crime bill or that will trigger an election on March 1st. I'm not surprised that Conservatives want to run on their mediocre crime bill, it's a right-wing staple to talk about being "tough on crime" whilst scaring people with tales of violence and lawlessness. The problem is that this kind of thing often works.

All the more reason to trigger an election now.

Israel Gets a Free Ride

When it comes to the lives of Canadian soldiers, it appears that they are (rightly) worth a great deal when in Afghanistan, but not so much when they are in Lebanon and bothersome to the Israeli Defense Forces. The story that's come out the past couple of days seems to indicate that the UN observation post where Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was stationed was reporting Israeli war crimes. As for the investigation, Israel has refused to cooperate - despite Harper's assurances to the contrary.

Why is it that Israel can kill our troops with impunity? No one is called to account, no is made to testify. Harper has deliberately shifted our Middle East policy to be more explicitly pro-Israel, and what do we get for it? Nothing. No matter where one's sympathies lie in the Middle East, surely one should expect some kind of accountability for this kind of action.

Stephen Harper's campaign song

I really hope that opposition decides to do the right thing and knock off this government sooner rather than later. The disturbing tales of the civil service keeping track of opposition MPs just adds another level of sinister to what Harper is doing.

This is an opaque, paranoid government run by a bunch of Harperite drones. In that light, I present to you the campaign theme song for the Conservative Party: Radiohead's Paranoid Android!

Harper Stands Up for Boeing

It looks like we are signing another contract with Boeing, this time for a bunch of helicopters. I remember when these sorts of purchased were actually scrutinized. Apparently now the Defence department just buys stuff and we'd all better shut up. Because of the war. Or something.

One Thousand Times the Acceptable Risk

Linda Keen's testimony strikes me as far more credible than Gary Lunn's posturing about how he was saving lives by ignoring the warnings of the nuclear safety commission. My impression is that it is utterly shameful that this woman has been fired. Once again it's apparent that this is the Conservatives' moment of weakness.

M. Dion, Mr. Layton, bring down this government!

Stephen Harper, he's one thousand times the acceptable risk.

Is it time?

There have been a few occasion where myself and other bloggers have called for the toppling of the Conservative government, but few of these calls has been as forceful or coherent as Scott's pair of posts on the matter (aided by JimBobby) in the last couple of days.

I think they're onto something here, particularly with the prisoner transfer. A couple of ministries in Harper's government have always been embarrassments. The reality though is that Harper could get away with that at, say, Environment because no one who really cared about the environment was voting for him anyway.

Now though, we see confusion and gross incompetence in one of the files that Harper seems to be really concerned about, the war. Steve's ideas about Canada being "back" on the world stage (where did we go?), his desire to improve US relations, and his general yearning for a "tough" image were all bound up in the Afghan file.

And his people have messed it up, botched a cover-up, and generally made fools of themselves. How his communications people aren't unemployed is beyond me.

Harper has now exposed a great deal of weakness on what was thought to be one of his most well-guarded flanks.

Is Harper out of touch with the military?

The new talking point about the cessation of Afghan prisoner transfers emanating from the PMO is that the government didn't know they had ended. For the past couple of months this had been an ongoing issue with Canada's role in Afghanistan. In this sort of situation, don't you think that someone in the government might want to phone up the military ask what's going on with prisoner transfers.

Is this government a secretive, partisan operation, or is it just unfathomably incompetent?

Five Priorities? More like one.

Scott Tribe has already made a pair of very thoughtful posts on the cessation of prisoner transfers to Afghan authorities. I think that his central assessment of this is correct, that Harper was making a political move more than anything. This is another piece of evidence that Harper has one priority - partisan gain.

How damaging were the stories of Canada turning over Afghans to be tortured? The culture of Afghanistan appears to have, among other elements, a sense of family and clan honour that appears to require that scores be settled. If Afghans thought that Canada was handing over their countrymen to be tortured, how many of them were inspired to give aid and comfort to the Taliban? What if we had loudly said, as soon as the issue came up, that ill-treatment was unacceptable, that prisoners dying in captivity was unacceptable, and that we would not be party to any such thing?

The problem though is that Stephen Harper is a man of priorities - and priority number one is partisan victory.

The Yes Men Return

I can't wait to peruse Manley's report, I'm sure that it'll tell Harper exactly what he wants to here. Here to demonstrate what happens when you "stay the course" are the kids from Rebel Without A Cause, take it away!

The Prophet of Chalk River

I'd say it would be Harper's brain, Tom Flanagan who last year tipped his hand with these words:

"In times of perceived crisis, a conservative party can win by positioning itself further to the right, as shown by the victories of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Ralph Klein, Mike Harris and Gordon Campbell. But Canadians don't perceive themselves in crisis right now." [emphasis mine]

Here's the crisis they need to sell off the AECL to GE or someone else. Convert decades of Canadian taxpayer investment into private profits - that's what Lunn aims to do. It's probably what also drove Lunn into a fit of economic nationalism when he insisted that Ontario buy AECL reactors. Create value for GE, great, that's what will cause the Conservative to worry about the Ontario economy.

There was no medical crisis (?)

There was an interesting interview on As It Happens last night in which Dr. Tom Perry, a physician and UBC prof, pointed out that, contrary to what Gary Lunn is saying, no lives were in danger as a result of the isotope shortage. Dr. Perry indicated that a shortage of this sort might hinder some medical diagnoses, but that doctors had other means to reach those diagnoses.

In this light, Lunn's firing of Linda Keen seems that much more political, much more about skirting government embarrassment.

What Keen's Firing Says About Harper's Tories

I think the most straightforward lesson to take away from the tarring of Linda Keen as a Liberal hack and her subsequent firing is that we have yet another example of how the Conservatives view everything as a partisan opportunity. This is the Karl Rove strategy perfected in the US.

What I'm going to suggest to the Liberals and the NDP and the Greens is that, by Harper's rules, everything is fair game. Every time you can score partisan points, recognize that, if Harper was in your position, he would not hesitate. I don't know that this is the most tasteful way that politics is done, but you've got give as good as you get, right?

Shoot the Messenger

I heard this on the radio in the early morning hours, but Harper has canned Linda Keen, the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission for, um, doing her job? Embarrassing Gary Lunn? I don't know, but imagine what would have happened if Paul Martin had fired the auditor general, Sheila Fraser for embarrassing his government. Of course that would be unthinkable - an outrage in the opposition's eyes, Fraser was exposing a slush fund in Quebec! This is just about, you know, nuclear fucking safety!!! No big deal, eh Steve?

Credit Where Credit is Due

This National Post column by Colby Cosh on Marc Emery (the "Prince of Pot") largely gets it right:

"The U.S. is using the technical presence of an unenforced law on our books to carry its drug war onto our soil. If the Honourable Mr. Nicholson allows this to reach its logical conclusion, and Mr. Emery is sent south for notional crimes committed entirely on Canadian soil, it will constitute a blow to our national sovereignty."

Of course I'm very doubtful as to whether the Conservatives will stand up to protect Mr. Emery as it would clash with their new "war on drugs" mentality. Harper is very conscious about staying on message, so I doubt that he would let common sense or jurisprudence override his political instincts.

People who want a Harper majority predict that he will get it

If you read between the lines of this National Post article, it's fairly apparent that those who support Harper predict that he will get a majority. Says the Post,

"Canadians predict Stephen Harper and Hillary Clinton will win in national elections this year in their respective countries, but only one in three thinks the Conservative prime minister can break through and obtain a majority government, a national poll reveals."

One third, eh? How many Canadians support the Conservatives again?

"A Dec. 21 Ipsos-Reid horse race poll showed the Tories at 35% and the Grits at 33%."

Oh, so statistically 1/3 of Canadians. Maybe it's Liberal supporters that are filled with self-doubt that are making this prediction. Let's look at these numbers again:

"Respondents in Quebec gave Harper his slimmest chance of winning a majority -- only 26% expected a majority win --while those in Alberta, at 55%, predicted his greatest shot at winning control of the House of Commons."

So the province where Harper is most popular is also the province where they predict a majority - yep, I was right.