COMMENT

November 25, 2005 - Hmmm. I wonder who that Liberal backroom person is? For shame.

...

Elxn Organized Crime
Source: The Canadian Press
Nov 25, 2005 11:37

OTTAWA -- Liberals say Conservative attempts to link them to organized crime is an outrageous smear and demand an apology -- the Tories refuse.

Finance Minister Ralph Goodale told the Commons today that Conservatives are mean and the comment cannot stand.

Tory John Reynolds says there will be no apology and quoted a backroom Liberal as saying the government is spending money like 100 monkeys on drugs.

Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said yesterday that the Gomery report showed Liberals in cahoots with organized crime.

Goodale says Harper should immediately apologize and stop taking the low road.
(BN)

...

 

November 25, 2005 - Flotsam and jetsam, bits and pieces:

• To save Susan Delacourt and a team of crack Toronto Star investigative reporters some time, I confess: I, too, was at the right wing book launch at the Albany Club last night. I was there. I admit it. Now, I was there mainly because (a) to buy the book, since I like the pair of youthful authors in question, even though they are woefully, tragically misinformed about politics and (b) I was hoping some Harrisite (and the ex-officio OPP aboriginal affairs advisor was there, too, by the way) would take a swing at me, and start a big brawl. No dice. Everyone was nice.
  
  Damn. Anyway - when I saw all of the cameras there, my spidey sense started to warn "danger." Sure enough - they were waiting for a brief appearance by Lord Cross-indicted.
  
  Warren's Rule of Political Self-Preservation Number Three: Never Get In Camera Range With An Alleged Felon, because You Will Live To Regret It. I therefore booked out of there faster than the proverbial speeding bullet.
  
  
• The RevMod Gaffe-O-Meter is back. Judging by yesterday's sandbox politics, I predict RevMod is going to be plenty busy.
  
  
• Yazza! We won Scarborough-Rouge River - and check out the pounding Bas laid on the Tory candidate! A portent of things to come, methinks.
  
  
• I wouldn't have treated this lightly, as Peter MacKay apparently did in the House yesterday.
  
  I say this, too, as a lefty Liberal In Exile (TM): the federal spending binge is one of the most irresponsible, cynical things I have ever seen - and I've seen plenty of irresponsible, cynical stuff in my day. All of the pain and agony we all went through in the 1990s - base closures, UI cuts, health cuts, cuts to everything imaginable - and for what? For this? For Dithers and his desperate cabal to hold onto power for a few days more? The billions upon billions being shoveled out the door is more than cynical - it is dangerous, and I'm not the only guy who thinks so.
  
  Paul Martin has destroyed the last positive associated with his reputation - that of prudent fiscal manager. Now, all that he resembles is a Duplessis-era road-paver. Nothing more.

 

November 25, 2005 – I had not seen this before last night. A sharp-eyed reader sent it along.

Had I seen it earlier, I would have delisted him then and there. I hope that others do likewise, now.

November 25, 2005 - Hey, I forgot this was in the Globe yesterday, as an insert thing.

Now you all know what my dog looks like.

November 24, 2005 - About to do a hit on CITY-TV with Ann Rohmer, as well as my erudite buddy Rudyard Griffiths. The theme is the coming election and, ipso facto, "Does anyone care?"

Call me a weedy idealist, but I actually think people do. Cold or not, they'll pay attention.

Am I alone?

November 24, 2005 - Looking at the communications carnage in today's papers - and recalling last night's newscasts - I can now pass judgment. And my judgment is this: yesterday, Dithers' government broke every communications rule in the book, to twist Sheila Fraser's memorable aphorism.

In one short day, they:

1. Stepped all over their own announcements
2. Looked panicked, cynical, confused and desperate
3. Could not articulate a single compelling reason for why they were announcing what they were announcing
4. Lost control of the news agenda, utterly

Residential schools money; Air India inquiry; grain seed farmers boodle; labour market training agreement; immigration program dough; candidate rumours; judicial appointments - and, at day's end, as dessert, an income trust announcement wherein the Minister of Finance was flatly contradicted by his own Parliamentary Secretary.

It was insane. It was nuts. It was like 100 monkeys on hallucinogenic, writing cheques. (Actually, monkeys know more about communications theory. Cheque-writing, too.)

Anyway, the final indignity came when all of their hard work - all of their frenzy of announceables, to use the Ottawa idiom - came to naught. Good old Danny McTeague stomped all over every damn announcement, every billion, with his demand that rapper 50 Cent be kept out of Canada. It dominated every newscast. Blew away everything else.

I swear to God, you can't make this shit up, even if you tried. If these guys get re-elected, it's because God is mad at the remaining 30 million of us for something we did in a previous life.

Ta. I'm off to write 39 competing press releases, which I intend to release simultaneously, late on a Friday afternoon and just before a long weekend.



November 24, 2005 – Yesterday was a crazy day. Crazy.

It was one of those days where I couldn’t stray very far from my computer. So, between emails and documents and research and whatnot, I popped in and out of blogs and chat rooms. As is my wont, I’d poke a stick through the bars at some kook, get a chuckle, and then flit away.

At one point, I saw that the good folks at CommentsPlease had posted the little thing I did below about the Calgary Grit. I really like what Bart does on that site, and I said so. Yesterday, Bart had posted a commentary and link about Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi, who years ago called political opponents “niggers” – and, more recently, had attacked Jews who objected to his support of a member of a Nazi death squad who lied to get into Canada.

That immediately drew a response from NDP supporter Robert McClelland, the guy who runs the MyBlahg blog, and to whom I have linked for a long time:

>> Get real, Kinsella. Bart lives in his own little world of spin just like the rest of us.
Posted By Robert McClelland / Posted At 11/23/05 10:18 AM

Now, Robert likes to be outrageous (like most bloggers do) and he sometimes goes too far (like some bloggers do). So I merely wrote this:

>> Sure, but I think he does good work. Just my opinion.
Posted By Warren K / Posted At 11/23/05 10:20 AM

Right away, Robert came back with this:

I thought that too until he dragged out a thirty year old quote and used it out of context to smear someone.
Posted By Robert McClelland / Posted At 11/23/05 10:24 AM

Bart himself got into the discussion with a bit of humour:

I agree with Kinsella - CalgaryGrit does outstanding work! (seriously, thanks for the link Warren) Robert: Telegdi has said plenty of boneheaded things...the old quote is just the best of the bunch.
Posted By CalgaryGrit / Posted At 11/23/05 10:37 AM

Now, that got me thinking. So I decided to ask Robert a question:

And, BTW, Robert, you of all people should know that there is no statute of limitations on the use of the word "nigger" by people who go on to be Liberal MPs. Right?
Posted By Warren K / Posted At 11/23/05 10:40 AM

That one should have been easy to answer, and it should have been the end of the matter. But Robert came back with this:

You of all people should recognize that it's simply not fair to judge yesterday's vernacular by today's standards.
Posted By Robert McClelland / Posted At 11/23/05 11:45 AM

Whoa! One minute later, Robert made a bad situation worse, and addressed Bart:

Then you should have used one of those examples rather than pull a right whinger move by using one that is bogus. Using that quote to paint Telegdi as a racist is simply wrong by every standard.
Posted By Robert McClelland / Posted At 11/23/05 11:46 AM

At that point, I got a bit angry. Robert couldn’t possibly be justifying the use of the word “nigger,” could he? So I wrote this:

It's fair, and it's right. Particularly when that same MP attacked Jews who were upset he used his powers to keep [in Canada] a member of a Nazi death squad - a member of a Nazi death squad who had lied his way into Canada.

But more to the point, now that you have my full attention: are you saying, yes or no, that calling people "niggers" is forgivable, or unimportant, because it is "yesterday's vernacular?"

Yes or no, Robert? Because if your answer is "yes," you are off my blogroll - and quite a few others, I suspect.
Posted By Warren K / Posted At 11/23/05 11:50 AM

Robert didn’t respond to that for a quite a while, although other posters certainly did. They, like me, disapproved of Robert’s willingness to defend the use of the word “nigger.” One, a conservative blogger, seemed to think it was amusing, or politically-useful to observe Lefties squabbling amongst themselves. That, too, was annoying. I noted:

Sorry, but if someone calls someone a "nigger," and attacks Jews for objecting to Nazis who lied their way into Canada, I don't give a sweet shit what party they belong to. They don't belong in Parliament.
Posted By Warren K / Posted At 11/23/05 3:53 PM

Then Robert, incredibly, wrote this:

What I'm saying is that in the past using terms like nigger was more widespread and acceptable. Here's an example of it from a children's nursery rhyme I'm sure you're familiar with.

Eeny-meeny-minny-moe.
Catch a nigger by the toe.

I don't why the word nigger appears in this rhyme, but it does and I'm quite certain that many people my age learned this nursery rhyme when they were kids with the word nigger in it.

Is that an example of racism just because it contains the word nigger? And is anyone who repeated that rhyme as a kid guilty of being racist or offensive. No. And neither is Telegdi's use of the term in the 30 year old quote. Which is why I'm saying it's not an issue. He did not use it as a racial slur nor did he use it in order to be offensive. He was simply using language that was still considered acceptable at the time but is now considered unacceptable.

And the use of this quote against Telegdi is nothing more than retroactive outrage.
Posted By Robert McClelland / Posted At 11/23/05 3:56 PM

That was enough for me. I didn’t want this web site to link to someone who thought it was “acceptable” for Andrew Telegdi to call people “niggers.” Whether on the Left, or on the Right, vicious racial epithets are never “acceptable.” So I removed the link to Robert’s web site.

But Robert kept at it, digging himself deeper. You can see the whole unpleasant exchange for yourself here. This is how I ended my participation in the discussion:

Robert, I don't think you understand the gravity of what happened here, in this little corner of the Internet.

You defended, and rationalized, the use of the word NIGGER.

That makes you as bad as the right-wing bigots you have properly criticized for years.

The NDP needs to be made aware of your views, and will be.
Posted By Warren K / Posted At 11/23/05 4:19 PM

And, with this posting, they have been. If Robert is a member of the NDP in a weeks’ time, I’ll be surprised.

At the moment, however, I’m a little bit sad about all of this. I’ve written books about racism emanating from the Right. But no one – to invoke the cliché – ever has a monopoly on virtue, do they?

No, they don’t, as the election campaign will shortly confirm.

November 23, 2005 - My hunch? Martin will go to the GG before this motion can be voted - likely Friday - to say that Parliament is no longer functioning, Canadians deserve better, blah blah blah, and pull the plug. In that way, he isn't fired by the Opposition, but quits first.

Kind of reminiscent of Junior's quit cabinet/fired from cabinet controversy a couple years ago, ain't it?

...

Opposition unveils non confidence motion to topple Liberals (URGENT-Elxn-Fever)
Source: The Canadian Press
Nov 23, 2005 13:29

OTTAWA- The Opposition has formally served notice that it plans to bring down the minority Liberal government, unveiling a non-confidence motion to trigger an election next week.

The motion appears in the House of Commons order paper.

It condemns the Liberals for arrogance and corruption, and says the government no longer has the confidence of the House.

The motion, to be tabled Thursday by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, has the support of all parties.

It is expected to be voted on Monday, kicking off a mid-winter election campaign that would begin the following day. (CP)

...

 

November 23, 2005 - Once again, I cannot improve upon what is being written by Calgary Grit - a young guy who, I hasten to point out, is doing better research/commentary, for free, than what we see out of a lot of the MSM based in Ottawa these days. Amazing.

 

November 23, 2005 - That's quite alright. A majority of Canadians don't have the slightest amount of "confidence" in you, the founder of The Temporary Rainbow Ad Hoc Coalition of Separatists, nor your boss. And, if my gut is right, we're getting ready to fire the pair of you, too.

So call it even.

...

Ottawa may fire Pelletier - again

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government is warning Jean Pelletier that he shouldn't expect to get his job back as chairman of Via Rail despite a favourable court ruling.

Pelletier was fired after making disparaging remarks about Myriam Bedard, a champion biathlete who testified about the sponsorship scam last year. His dismissal was overturned last week by a Federal Court judge who ruled that he was improperly let go. But Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said Tuesday that Pelletier would be fired again for the very same reason - although this time he has received a fair warning.

Lapierre said he sent Pelletier a letter this week warning that he faces suspension or firing.

"He's getting due process now," Lapierre said. "He was advised that I don't have confidence in him to chair Via Rail."

...

 

November 22, 2005 - Quiz time. Who said this?

"His performance was one of the most remarkable I have ever witnessed...He demonstrated absolutely unflagging energy, getting the job done in very difficult circumstances, and never wavered."

That would be John Tory.

And who was John talking about?

That would be "Brian Mulroney."

(The Secret Mulroney Tapes, pg. 148)

 

November 22, 2005 - Two great pieces of legal news which popped onto the newswire literally within one minute of each other:

• Austria charges controversial historian David Irving over Holocaust speeches
  (Austria-Irving-Charge)
  
  VIENNA, Austria (AP) _ Austrian prosecutors on Tuesday filed charges against controversial British historian David Irving for allegedly violating an Austrian law that makes Holocaust denial a crime, a prosecutor said.
  
  Irving, an expert on the Third Reich who has claimed that Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of six million Jews, was detained Nov. 11 in the southern province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989. "A charge was filed in relation to two speeches in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers," prosecutor Otto Schneider said.
  
  
• URGENT CRIME Trudeau Acquitted
  (URGENT-CRIME-Trudeau-Acq)
  
  OTTAWA- The alcohol-related driving case against Margaret Trudeau has been thrown out of court based on violations of the Charter of Rights championed by her former husband more than 20 years ago.
  
  Ontario Court Judge Lise Maisonneuve said Trudeau's right to counsel and protection against unwarranted detention were violated when she was picked up May 30, 2004. Maisonneuve said the serious and repeated breaches of Trudeau's charter rights by Ottawa police Cst. Trevor Archibald would compromise her right to a fair trial.

 

November 22, 2005 – Canada Steamship Lines is a company owned by a certain Canadian politician.  It doesn’t fly the Canadian flag to avoid paying taxes here, it has had a ship seized for drug running and, now this, found in this.

If this upsets you – and it should – you can express your anger here.

Man oh man, if I was involved in the election, I would build a whole campaign around this issue.  It’d be a winner, too.

November 21, 2005 – The Calgary Grit is one of the best bloggers in Canada, and not simply because we usually agree with each other. He’s one of the best because he’s smart, he’s funny, and he’s a terrific writer. And when you meet him – as I did, at the March 2005 Ottawa Liberal convention I attended as a delegate, no less – you will be depressed by how young he is. He made me feel 100 years old, in fact.

In any event, his post on the Brison broadside is a keeper, and it’s here. He calls it, appropriately, Reptilian Kitty Eater.

November 21, 2001 – The Oracle of Ottawa is a PhotoShop wizard.

This one neatly summarizes last week, I’d say.  I don’t get the Florida thing, however.

November 19, 2005 - Bits and pieces, dis and dat:

• Interesting name for a Democratic Party website, n'est-ce pas?
  
  
• It won't work. One, because it ain't true. And, two, because Scott's seatmates include 50-odd Liberals who have actually stood up in the House of Commons to oppose legal rights for gays and lesbians. Scott is rather selective in his outrage, but we knew that already. He's not a credible person, anymore.
  
  
• This guy may be the first corporate guy to ever understand what a blog is all about. An MSM corporate media blog is a contradiction in terms, I know, but Dan Cook may have pulled it off.
  
  
• Purple monkey washer, here.
  
  
• Liz Thompson's CanWest story on Jean Pelletier's victory, here - and my comment therein: "It will be tough enough as it is to get people to help you out, trudging through snow banks and knocking on doors in the middle of a snowstorm," said Warren Kinsella, a Chrétien loyalist and former aide. "Now to have the civil war starting up again where cabinet is considering re-firing this recipient of the Order of Canada - it's crazy. They should be ashamed of themselves."
  
  
• As I told Mike Duffy on his show last night, the federal cabinet received a written opinion from the Department of Justice stating that their planned firing of Jean Pelletier would be illegal. They did it anyway. Despite that, despite being kicked in the nuts by the Federal Court yesterday, here's Dithers sounding like he's going to do it all over again. Result: more civil war, more division, more millions in lawyers' fees to be picked up by the taxpayer. What a bunch of turkeys.

 

November 18, 2005 - And here is the Federal Court ruling on Jean Pelletier. Pretty soundly reasoned, if you ask me.

And if these dopes fire him again, he'll win again.

 

November 18, 2005 - Just got this from a reporter friend in Ottawa. A lot of us had said this great man's firing was yet another example of Paul Martin-style political vengeance and thuggery, and now the Federal Court has agreed.

Oh, Lordy, a hard rain is going to fall on the Martinite cabal - and it's coming soon.

...

Court overturns firing of Via Rail chair Jean Pelletier (Pelletier-Victory)
Source: The Canadian Press
Nov 18, 2005 10:37

OTTAWA (CP) _ A Federal Court judge has reinstated Jean Pelletier as chairman of Via Rail, saying the government was unfair in the way it fired him in March 2004.

Justice Simon Noel said Pelletier _ a Jean Chretien loyalist who was fired in connection with the sponsorship scandal _ deserved to know why has was dismissed and should have been given a chance to respond.

The judge set aside the firing order and referred the whole matter back to the federal cabinet.

Pelletier was chief of staff to Chretien for 1993 to 2001 and was appointed to a five-year term as chairman of Via in 2001.

He was fired after Olympic medalist Myriam Bedard wrote to Prime Minister Paul Martin in February 2004 complaining she had been forced to resign from a Via job. An arbitrator's report later found Bedard quit voluntarily, but Pelletier had already been fired.

INDEX: POLITICS BUSINESS

...

 

November 18, 2005 - It's on occasions like these why you will know why politics, to me, is all about the visual, and not so much about the literal.

My favourite cutline?

"...and they lost Chretien for this? Yeesh."

Send your best captions to me at warren@warrenkinsella.com and we'll have a vote on the best one.

 

November 18, 2005 - Interesting news release, which I pass on for your consideration:

...

Prime Minister Paul Martin is no friend of Israel
Opinion
Alastair Gordon
November 18, 2005 - Toronto

Prime Minister Paul Martin is no friend of Israel. Even by the standards of politics, Paul Martin's willingness to lie to a Jewish audience, especially when it is certain that he will be caught out a few days later, beggars the imagination.

On November 13, Paul Martin spoke to an overwhelmingly Jewish audience at the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities (UJC) in Toronto. He said [view video]:

"Canada has for many years supported Israel's rightful place in the international community, including at the United Nations. And we will continue to press for the kinds of reforms that will eliminate the politicization of the United Nations and its agencies, and in particular, the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions."

Three days later, Canada voted in the 4th Committee of the UN General Assembly on this year's ritual of 9 "politicized anti-Israel resolutions". Unbelievably, Canada voted against Israel 7 times, abstained once, and supported Israel only once. Does that mean that Paul Martin lied to a Jewish assembly, or had he just forgotten to instruct his foreign minister as to the government's new direction?

To answer that question, we need to go back a year to November 30, 2004 when Canada's ambassador to the United Nations, Allan Rock, announced that "resolutions [against Israel] are often divisive and lack balance" and hinted that he would improve the situation. Those who heaped praise on this foreign policy breakthrough didn't seem to notice that, the following day, Canada voted against Israel 5 out of 6 times on that year's first batch of "politicized anti-Israel resolutions", including one declaring that Israel has no legal, jurisdictional or administrative rights to any part of Jerusalem.

Is there a pattern here? Thunder with indignation before a Jewish audience as if the travesty is someone else's doing, and then continue the anti-Israel agenda unchanged. It worked in 2004, so why not try it again in 2005?

Did the cheering UJC audience notice that the only specific act of terrorism that Paul Martin highlighted in his speech last Sunday was the killing of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish assassin? He spent more time on this item than any other. The ongoing atrocities committed by Palestinians against Israelis did not warrant so much as a mention.

Paul Martin's UJC speech is not the first time he has lied to a Jewish audience. In his speech at the inaugural parliamentary dinner of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) on November 1, 2004, he declared:

"We must respond to every act of anti-Semitism! ... We must vigorously combat hate! ... THIS IS NOT OUR CANADA!!!"

For this, Martin received a standing ovation from the mostly Jewish audience, despite the fact that he had failed to respond in any meaningful way to growing anti-Semitism. When Mohamed Elmasry declared on television his support for killing all Israelis over the age of 18, Martin was silent. When Sheikh Younis Kathrada called Jews "the brothers of monkeys and swine" and incited Muslims to die as martyrs killing infidels, Martin was silent. When David Ahenakew, a recipient of the Order of Canada, praised Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust and referred to Jews as "a disease", Martin was silent. When Palestinian thugs and their supporters denied Ehud Barak the right to speak at Concordia University, Martin was silent. Martin was worse than silent when he personally appointed Yvon Charbonneau, a long-standing and well-known anti-Semite, to be Canada's ambassador to UNESCO. Was Paul Martin telling the truth when he said he would "respond to every act of anti-Semitism", or was he playing the Jewish community for fools?

Equally instructive is the pattern of media releases and statements from the Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister. Reviewing Paul Martin's official statements and news releases for the past year, one cannot miss his condemnations of terrorist attacks in Jordan, India and Egypt, yet regarding the many attacks against innocent civilians in Israel, Paul Martin is silent. But if killing Israelis does not reach his threshold for a statement or news release, concessions by Israel to Palestinian interests, such as the Gaza withdrawal, bring enthusiastic praise. And there is his official expression of sorrow over the death of Yassir Arafat, one of the worst killers of Jews in history. But Paul Martin's finest moment had to be sending Pierre Pettigrew to lay a wreath at Arafat's grave, while failing to likewise honour the thousands of Israeli victims of Arafat's terror.

Would a friend of Israel have as his government's official policy that Israel has no jurisdiction over Jerusalem, including recalling all Canadian passports that had "Jerusalem, Israel" as the place of birth? Would a friend of Israel support the bogus Palestinian "right of return" that he knows would destroy the Jewish state? Would a friend of Israel send over $300 million to the Palestinians whose ruling charter declares that "Judaism... is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own" and call for the destruction of the state of Israel? Every Canadian, including Paul Martin, should take a few minutes to read the Palestinian National Charter, and realize that its genocidal goals are being financed by self-proclaimed "friends of Israel" using Canadian tax dollars.

In December 2004, the Paul Martin government announced its usual $10 million annual funding of UNRWA []. When Marc Gold of the Canada-Israel Committee rightly asked the government to reconsider this funding in light of a massive body of evidence linking UNRWA to Hamas terror, the government actually paused to consider the evidence. After a few weeks, having seen videos showing UN ambulances being used by terrorists and hearing an admission by the Secretary General of UNRWA that Hamas operatives are on its payroll, our government made the decision to continue the funding. Paul Martin can view the evidence just as he can read the Palestinian National Charter, but his only explanation has been that Israel wants the funding to continue. One has to ask if our foreign policy is made in Ottawa or Jerusalem, and why Canada has no reasons of its own for knowingly allowing our tax dollars to pass into the hands of terrorists. One also has to ask if we are hearing reality or diplomatic doublespeak.

As discussed in CCD's recent testimony before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Paul Martin rewarded Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas for breaking every commitment he made. Abbas came to office promising (1) to disarm Palestinian militants, (2) to end incitement in schools and media, and (3) to end glorification of suicide bombing. On that understanding, Prime Minister Martin promised an additional $12.2 million in May of this year. Since receiving those Canadian tax dollars, President Abbas has reneged on all his commitments. Specifically, (1) Abbas's Foreign Minister publicly declared in June that the PA will not disarm Hamas and other terrorist groups under its jurisdiction; (2) Palestinian textbooks and PA-controlled media that deny the existence of Israel and preach the destruction of "the Zionist entity" have not changed; and (3) Abbas himself, speaking to a group of high school students and educators in Gaza, glorified suicide bombing when he declared, "What has been achieved here [in Gaza] is due to the martyrs". The consequences? In September, our Prime Minister rewarded Abbas's bad faith with another $24.5 million from Canadian taxpayers.

The lies of Paul Martin and the list of anti-Israel actions by his government are more than anyone has the patience to read. The real question is, why? Why does this government have such a blatantly anti-Israel foreign policy, a policy so important that our Prime Minister is willing to sacrifice his own credibility to maintain it? There may be a number of factors, but the one unalterable reality is that there are over 650,000 Muslims in Canada and only around 350,000 Jews. In the crude calculus of electoral politics, that means that Jewish concerns will get little more than lip service, especially considering that the Liberals have historically retained the Jewish vote no matter how they undermined Israel.

If the Jewish community wants to change this government's complicity in the existential threat facing Israel, they must demand that our politicians -- from all parties -- not only mouth platitudes about Israel, but act with honour and courage to support our only democratic partner in the Middle East. Sermonizing to Jewish audiences about anti-Semitism and then endorsing through silence incidents of Jew-hatred and incitement endangers every Jew in Canada. Professing to be a friend of Israel, and then demonizing Israel at the UN and sending tax dollars to groups dedicated to Israel's destruction should no longer be acceptable to any Jewish voter. Paul Martin speaks the right words to Jewish voters, but his actions consistently undermine Israel and strengthen her enemies. Enough, already! Paul Martin is no friend of Israel.

References:

1. November 13 2005 - Video of clip (31 seconds) from Paul Martin speech before the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities, acknowledging "the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions"
2. November 13 2005 - Video of Paul Martin's complete speech (11 minutes) before the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities
3. December 4 2004 - UN General Assembly adopts 6 anti-Israel resolutions
4. Index of official statements from Prime Minister Paul Martin
5. Index of official news releases from Prime Minister Paul Martin
6. Canadian funding of PA and Palestinian National Charter
7. Canada's funding of UNRWA and evidence linking UNRWA to Hamas terror
8. Canada-Israel Committee calls for investigation of UNRWA funding and its links to terror
9. CCD presentation before Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
10. Analysis of hatred and incitement in Palestinian schoolbooks - June 2005: One, two

-30-
This article available for reprint and reproduction free of charge.

...

 

November 17, 2005 - The Langevin Block Talking Points, courtesy of Jim Travesty.

What a load of crap. A columnist with the Toronto Star, no less, publishing an anti-immigration screed - at a time when everyone, from David Dodge on down, recognizes that our public and private pension systems are doomed because (a) so many Baby Boomers are heading towards retirement and (b) so few people are going to be around to help pay for things like Medicare and CPP and so on. Not to mention that it is completely - and I mean completely - contrary to everything the Star has always stood for.

So what prompted the column? I'll tell you. Travesty is one of PMO's last remaining messenger boys. They're taking a shot at Volpe because he makes decisions without running past The Board, and they don't like it.

Too bad, and too late. Shifting around the proverbial deck chairs doesn't ever prevent ships from sinking, in my experience.

 

November 17, 2005 - My old Charlatan co-conspirator Pete O'Neil has a story in today's Post, and elsewhere, about that Harry Swain speech. Now, I know Pete wouldn't have written this part, which made me gag on my bagel this morning:

"...according to a copy of [Swain's] speech obtained yesterday by CanWest News Service..."

Um, would that be the same speech that 100,000 or so readers of this wee website "obtained" yesterday, about six inches south of this sentence?

What-ever. Gotta go. Time to "obtain" some extensive diagrams of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee!

 

November 16, 2005 - Pierre Bourque's website is my home page, and has been for years. I spotted a link on his site about the Order of Canada, and started reading it, and then looked somewhere else, and found this.

The Chinese say sorrow is the child of too much joy, and I have always agreed with that.

 

November 16, 2005 - More this and that, flotsam and jetsam:

• Okay, yesterday this here weeb site 105569 hits. That's crazy, maaan. I'm sure a lot of it is splogs, and scanning porn sites and sleazebags like that. But can a member of the Propellerhead Cult explain what's happening, here? I'm thinking about getting my own www.warrenkinsella.com TSX listing, and I need to know how soon I can retire!
  
  
• SFH is indeed ready to be deployed, as suggested here, to wreak maximum political damage, folks. We are also available for Toronto-area Christmas parties. Our number may be reduced by 20 per cent - but the rest of us can still take a beer bottle full in the chest without missing a beat. Hire us, now!
  
  
• From CP this morning: "Charest also announced the Liberals won't field a candidate in an upcoming byelection in a Montreal-area riding and will let Boisclair run unopposed to win a seat in Quebec's National Assembly." And you know why they're doing THAT, don't you? This Boisclair guy is the best news the Quebec Liberals have had in ages. A referendum has become less likely, as of last night. And that's the best news I've heard in a long time.
  
  
• And, also last night, The Rayman and my girl and I went to see Bad Religion and they were just (pun intended) God-like. I was glad we elected to see them, BTW, and not attend the brie-and-chardonnay Maclean's thing (reading this , you'll know why: I'm lousy at sitting still for extended periods of time). Best part? Easy. Nearly 2,000 punks present singing along to 'Let Them Eat War,' like this: "From the force to the union shops, the war economy is making new jobs...But the people who benefit most are breaking bread with their benevolent hosts...Who never stole from the rich to give to the poor...All they ever gave to them was a war, and a foreign enemy to deplore..."
  
  
• Harry Swain, a federal 'crat of some considerable note, gave a speech to ADMs last week, and it's astonishing. Here's one nugget: "All my friends tell me that this town has never been so miserable. Ridiculous and surreal impositions are raining on the public service from management theorists and politicians - sometimes the same person - seeking to bury Gomery. Reorganizations, comptrollers, new rules on procurement, auditors by the cubic ton-mile, the suspicion that we are no longer the best of all public services - all conspire to make this the town where the best and brightest are counting the days until their numbers roll up and then it's bye-bye baby for the fleshpots of the private sector...A major part of the reason Canada works at all, let alone as well as it does - which is very well indeed - is because the Public Service carried on in spite of all this nonsense...The last two years have been a quite amusing combination of dumb things done just to make the Martin government look different from Mr. Chrétien's -- splitting DFAIT, for one - and huge lurches to deal with minor problems. Taking an axe to equalization for the chance of a few Atlantic seats, or committing $41 billion - 41 billion dollars! - to solve the insoluble and wholly provincial problem of waiting times are good examples. The real major policy shift of the present administration has been losing control of the expenditure budget. Bucks and bodies are flowing like water here on the banks of the Rideau." I've got the whole speech here. Read it. It'll blow you away, if you care. Which you should.

 

November 15, 2005 - I'd post this later, but I'm going to Bad Religion tonight (have a spare ticket, too, by the way - email me if you are interested).

Check this out. The 905 is in play. Once again, with feeling: why didn't the Libs take Layton up on his earlier offer? They may now be wishing they did.

November 15, 2005 - And, while I think of it - and to head off my friend Cherniak, before he starts kvetching about how me, Calgary Grit, Sheila Copps and assorted others should stop kvetching about the federal Liberal "team," etcetera - here's an edited-to-protect-the-guilty email I sent to one of the people named in Jane Taber's election readiness story today. I won't say who I sent it to, but I will say the email was never met with a response, let alone an acknowledgement.

So, to all federal Grits who plan to start bleating about the need for everyone to unite, pull together, fight the Stephen Harper/Jack Layton/Gilles Duceppe threat, blah blah blah, remember this: plenty of us were willing to let bygones be bygones, and offered to help out. And we never got so much as a polite "no thanks."

In my books, that gives us all free agent status, which we intend to deploy to the fullest extent imaginable. Or, put another way, the Martinites - the most disloyal group of "Liberals" imaginable - shouldn't start preaching about Liberal loyalty, now, should they?

...

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Kinsella
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:53 PM
To: XXXXXX@paulmartin.ca'
Subject: XXXXX

XXXX, it's been pretty obvious for some time that your team didn't need a lot of outside help in the lead-up to the next election... As I've told whomever asked, the Martin team seemed to be doing rather well all on their own, and I was fully confident they would win the next election handily. They didn't need my help, etc.

Today's news about a possible CA-Tory merger hasn't changed that prognosis, yet, but it can't be denied that (if successful) a single conservative party, coupled with a resurgent NDP, will change the landscape dramatically. A single conservative option, with a new leader, presents a threat.

There's no point in rehashing here a lot of grievances, on my side of the divide or yours. Suffice to say that, at the end of the day, I am a Liberal. So, in the form an email to you alone - because our mutual friend tells me you are an honourable guy - I am offering my help. I am fully confident said offer of help will be declined by others. But at least I will be able to tell myself that I offered it.

Best wishes in the weeks ahead.

W

...

 

 

November 15, 2005 - Bits and pieces, this and that:

• Got 73692 hits yesterday. What the Hell is up with that? Weird.
  
  
• Cyrus Reporter is the head of the Liberal war room, according to the Grit talking points (erm, the Glib and Frail). Good move. Cyrus is smart. Now, by saying nice things with him, I just screwed him with the kiddies in Langevin Block, but what the Hell. When the kiddies are dispatched to oblivion, a few weeks hence, not every Grit in Ottawa is going to be facing a war crimes trial. I kind of understand The Board's fondness for rigged judicial inquiries to get at one's enemies, however. Apparently the Tories do, too. Gentlemen, start your lawyers!
  
  
• The CP wire headline says it all: "Plant and dog registered, cast votes for new PQ leader, says Globe." From my admittedly biased perspective, if you vote to break up a country like Canada, you already have the intelligence of a household plant, so what's the big deal?
  
  
• There's another meme thing pinging around the world wide weeb again. This one requires you to dig through your archives (which I don't have, because I don't care what I said ten minutes after I said it, let alone a year later). You then have to post what the fifth line in your twenty-third post said, or something like that. The good folks at Cerberus tagged me, but then kindly dragged out what I wrote. Here's what was there:
  
  "Musings on evidence get judge in hot water..."
  
  "...Gomery always had a politically incorrect tongue..."
  
  "The Court of Appeal chastised him for his "gratuitous" outburst and "mood swing"...
  
  "...in a move that even his supporters acknowledge was maladroit, Judge Gomery decided to go beyond generalities and spoke to the media about some of the evidence before him."
  
  "...lawyers, however, are incensed by Judge Gomery's attitude and are concerned that his final report will not be objective. Fear is that he has already shown that he likes media attention, and that his conclusions on the sponsorship program could be unnecessarily sensational."
  
  As Cerberus noted, the fifth sentence is this: "The Court of Appeal chastised him for his 'gratuitous' outburst and 'mood swing'." Cerberus, again: "Technically, not yours, but it works for me." Ditto. Any of your Tories out there in the Internet ether regretting yet the suspension of your critical faculties about Judge John "Exonerated" Gomery, perchance?

 

November 14, 2005 - I know it's irritating when people do this, but it's my web site, and I'll brag if I want to:

"December 31, 2004 - In the Eastern Townships, everything is melting. I don't plan a big celebration - it doesn't feel right, following the tsunami tragedy in Southern Asia. Last year's big predictions - a Liberal minority, Bush re-election - got me laughed at, news coverage, and so on. But I guess I wasn't so far off the mark, was I? Here's this year's predictions. Happy New Year - I hope 2005 is better for you than 2004 was for me.

1. The Martin government will fall in 2005."

My suggestion for a good tag line? The Tories or the Dippers are welcome to it:

"Resolve to start 2006 with a change in government."

...

United opposition leaders reach deal to force January election
(Elxn-Opposition-Meets)
Source: The Canadian Press
Nov 13, 2005 20:15

OTTAWA (CP) _ Prime Minister Paul Martin had hoped to use Monday as a day to showcase billions of dollars in voter-friendly tax cuts. Instead he will face a united opposition that could topple his government and put him on the campaign trail over Christmas.

The three opposition party leaders struck a strategic deal Sunday that gives Martin an unpalatable choice:

He can agree to call an election on his own in the first week of January, or he can face a non-confidence motion that would topple his government before the end of November.

The first option would see voters cast their ballots in mid-February. It would also see Justice John Gomery deliver his second report on the federal sponsorship scandal in mid-campaign.

The second option would launch a campaign that overlaps the Christmas-New year holiday season, although the actual voting day would be Jan. 9.

The early indications were that Martin would take his chances with a holiday campaign _ and blame the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Quebecois for any inconvenience to the electorate.

"They can bring forward a motion of non-confidence," said a senior Liberal who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They will win that vote, and there will be a Christmas election."

INDEX: POLITICS

...

 

November 13, 2005 - Here's the Halifax Daily News weighing in on Fury's Hour. The Toronto Star, meanwhile, is still maintaining its boycott of the book - sort of like the BBC did with 'God Save the Queen.'

I'll get around to telling you why soon enough. The review:

...

Kinsella captures punk rock culture
By Stephen Clare

Fury's Hour: A (sort of) Punk Manifesto, by Warren Kinsella (Random House Canada), 304 pages, trade paperback, $27

Everyone my age had a punk rocker friend in high school or in their neighbourhood.

We all knew someone with a mohawk, leather jacket, or knee-high Doc Marten boots.

Warren Kinsella's latest book, Fury's Hour: A (sort of) Punk Manifesto, is a testament to those of us too young for Woodstock and too old for MTV; that awkward demographic blip born between boomers and their babies, ignored by our parents, the establishment and the marketplace. For our generation (X), punk rock was just what we looking for; something to believe in and call our own.

Kinsella once worked both as a special assistant to Jean Chretien, and as chief of staff in several federal ministries. Odd, considering he misspent his formative years playing bass in Calgary's premier 1980s punk-rock outfit, the Hot Nasties.

Now a little older, married with kids and working as a lawyer in Toronto, the author is not afraid to show his aged and greying roots, confessing "the writing of this book is probably some weird manifestation of the beginning of a mid-life crisis" and "I have become that which I once sought to destroy."

Kinsella jumps right into the mosh, describing punk as "angry" and "honest." Punk rockers were (and occasionally still are) "pissed off young people shaking things up, having a bit of fun and maybe changing a few attitudes along the way."

Though he never clearly defines punk as a musical genre or a cultural tour-de-force, Kinsella does piece the puzzle together with a strong melange of interviews, stories, anecdotes, historical facts and sociological commentary.

His chapters on the Ramones, Sex Pistols (then and now), Clash, Buzzcocks, Bad Religion and Minor Threat/Fugazi are essential reading for anyone looking to explore the edgy soundtrack of the "spirit of '77." Subsequent pages do well to expand and explain the many themes of punk subculture: fem-punk, straight edge, skinhead, hate-core, and so on.

Kinsella correctly notes that the mandate of contemporary rock can be traced to the prevailing "do-it-yourself" philosophy of punk: pirating, punkblogs, and webcasts are just a generation removed from indie labels, fanzines and all-ages shows.

However, the author later admits that much of today's punk has become "homogenized, sterilized, white suburban frat-boy pop" and quotes the late, great Joe Strummer as saying bands today "think its funny turning rebellion into money."

Though Fury's Hour occasionally comes across as a sort of safety- pinned up thesis on politics and pop-culture, Kinsella writes with an aggressiveness that suits the subject matter and reminds the reader of what was, and is, so endearing about punk rock: the questioning and complacency of the status quo.

For those of us wondering where all our high school punk friends are now, take comfort. Like you, they are alive and well and living in the 'burbs.

...

 

November 12, 2005 - Under the header "TORONTO'S TOP TALKERS - A roundup of raconteurs, quipsters and windbags," today's fine-looking National Post has windbag-tagged Yours Screwly. This is the entirety of what Shinan wrote:

...

"WARREN KINSELLA: Sound! Bite!"

...

If you understand it, drop me a line. Meanwhile, I'm off with the littlest guy to hockey (who, BTW, said this to me last night: "Daddy, is God looking after me?" Affirmative, little buddy. "Is Elvis looking after me?")

November 11, 2005 - The ceremonies are complete, and moving, as always. When you watch them, of course, they leave you thinking about war.

In that vein, I wanted to point out that Paul Martin told the Laurier Club last night (check out CTV's extensive coverage and the video links here, about eleven minutes in) that, if Stephen Harper was a majority government Prime Minister, we would be at war in Iraq.

That might be true. But it's also true that, had he won a majority, Paul Martin would have done the same damn thing:

• "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." - (Paul Martin, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003).
  
  
• "I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was... that [Saddam Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction. ...he had lied and that he is continuing to lie." - (Paul Martin, Calgary Herald, March 7, 2003)
  
  
• "The problem is...we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that." - (Paul Martin, Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004)
  
  
• "Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral." - (Paul Martin, CTV News, May 21, 2004)

"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." Get that? Paul Martin said that. Not Harper or Layton or Duceppe. Paul Martin. Get to war, and get to war fast. Said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, too.

On this Remembrance Day, it's useful to remember - as Paul Martin cravenly seeks to depict his opponent as pro-war - that, once upon a time, Paul Martin favoured George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq, too.

My friend Chretien? He never did.

November 11, 2005 – Before the ceremonies, let me pass on correspondence received from a reader, concerning one of Canada’s greatest political analysts.

...

Hey Warren,

Keith Boag spoke to the political communication class I'm taking here at the U of O tonight. Your name came up. On the question of how the CBC decides which pundits get airtime, Keith answered that you always want to have balance on the panel, one mouthpiece from each party etc.:

"...but recently, I noticed our Sunday show had Warren Kinsella on as the Liberal representative. Now, Kinsella is someone who does not like the current prime minister, or the side of the Liberal party that is currently in power, and in fact during the last election campaign, he counselled against voting for them. It didn't really make sense to have him voicing for the current Liberals. So, I got on the phone and said what I felt about that."

So there ya go, your appearance pissed Keith off so much that he called in on an off-day. If this means you don't have to get up too bloody early on anymore Sunday's, I guess you have him to thank. :)

...

So, um, who do I call at CBC to complain about Keith Boag regularly warning A Certain Firm about unhelpful journalistic inquiries coming their way?

It doesn’t really make sense for him to be pretending he’s still a journalist and all that, does it?

Just wondering.

November 10, 2005 - Best moment at the Death From Above 1979, Queens Of The Stone Age, Nine Inch Nails beeg shew? Walking out, ears bleeding, after the set by Toronto's manic DFA1979, and spotting a guy none of us knew in an SFH shirt. Verily brought tears to my eyes, I tell you. Not as much as the volume of the brutes in Queens, mind you, but close.

Pet theory of the evening: goth is basically a lot of shy white kids in PVC gear. They'll all be accountants within a decade.

Other theory: web experts are the AV Club of the new era.

Back to the show and Mr. Reznor. My gal looks hot.

November 10, 2005 - Yeah, and we really honour Rabin's memory - which deserves to be honoured, far and wide - by sending the guy who was Prime Minister for about ten DAYS, as opposed to the one who was Prime Minister for ten YEARS.

These people make me puke.

...

Date: November 10, 2005
For Release: Immediate

FORMER PRIME MINISTER JOHN TURNER TO ATTEND THE COMMEMORATION CEREMONY FOR YITZHAK RABIN ON BEHALF OF PRIME MINISTER MARTIN

...

 

November 10, 2005 - I am two days late, I know - typical Kinsella, etc. etc. - but did anyone else see the top-of-the-news story on CTV about this? It was frightening in the extreme. Check it out.

 

November 10, 2005 - Ho ho ho. A little story in La Presse about the fax shown below, which first showed up here.

Hmmm. Perhaps THAT is why Bernard Roy/Sally Gomery got the assignment!

Fore!

 

November 9, 2005 - "Who is that scruffy band of punk rockers attempting to drown out our voices with their awful music?"

"They call themselves Shit From Hell, sir."

 

November 9, 2005 - Hands up if anyone can understand who is going to topple the government, if they're going to, when, or why.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Me neither.

 

November 8, 2005 - What a maniac.

Harper's doomed. It's over before it has started.

(Unless, of course, Harper tells Klein to publicly endorse Martin, and Klein does it. Or he provides proof that Klein is on the Liberal war room payroll, and has been for quite some time.)

...

URGENT Klein Harper Election, (URGENT-Klein-Harper-Elec)
Source: The Canadian Press
Nov 8, 2005 13:44

CALGARY- Alberta Premier Ralph Klein says he wants to be involved in the next federal election.

Klein says he'll do anything Conservative Leader Stephen Harper asks him to do when the next vote is called.

But Klein says he'll draw the line at personally knocking on doors for Harper. Klein also says he'll take advantage of a cross-country trip he already has planned to tell people that the Conservatives would be a good choice to replace the scandal-plagued Liberal government in Ottawa.

The Alberta Tory premier was criticized after the last federal election for costing Harper votes when Klein publicly mused about health-care reform.

Some observers suggested Klein and Harper were working together to destroy medicare.
(CP)

...

 

November 8, 2005 - "We won't play games, bien sur, but if you are looking for a cabinet post, a diplomatic assignment, a Senate appointment, or anything else at all, please know that we are a party of very comfy fur. Ask Belinda. And, um, that bulge in your clothing signals excitement and not a recording device, right?"

...

Martin to Layton: Willing to protect medicare, but won't play political games
(Elnx-Martin)
Source: The Canadian Press
Nov 8, 2005 9:43


OTTAWA (CP) _ Prime Minister Paul Martin is not willing to negotiate with NDP Leader Jack Layton to keep his minority Liberal government alive.

Martin says he won't play political games, and the offer he made to the NDP to improve health care protection will stand as is, despite the threat of a winter election.

Layton has demanded better protection for medicare but rejects a Liberal proposal as too weak and has withdrawn his party's support in Parliament that has allowed Martin to govern.

Martin says he considers the medicare proposal to be government policy and Layton can join him in protecting medicare if he wishes.

But the prime minister says he is turning his focus now to such things as the coming economic update and what he calls standing up to the Americans in the softwood lumber dispute.

INDEX: POLITICS

...

 

November 7, 2005 - How very interesting. What can this mean?

VISITOR ANALYSIS:

Referring Link: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm
Host Name: veraxisserver.veraxis.ca
IP Address: 64.26.155.82
Country: Canada
Region: Ontario
City: Ottawa
ISP: Magma Communications Ltd

 

November 7, 2005 - Anyone who knows me knows I love the Datsuns (Special K and Benzie in particular). But Chinchillas and Datsuns together? It doesn't get any better than that. My God, this man is a twisted genius.

 

November 7, 2005 - I thought this column was important enough to actually go out and purchase it. I've added some bolding to suggest why it's important. "Borrowed a lead from Stalin's book." He's "crass." Conduct "unworthy of a democratic leader." Incredible, from someone like Gagnon. (She wrote the same thing in La Presse last week, but I could not find it online.)

For months, I and a small number of others had been saying that the Gomery terms of reference were rigged, and that the process was designed to obtain a pre-ordained result. I'm glad to see that, finally, a few other voices are echoing those criticisms.

For great men like Jean Pelletier, however, I fear it is too late.

...

And other strange Gomery tales
LYSIANE GAGNON
692 words
7 November 2005
The Globe and Mail
A17

In what kind of country are people banned for life from the governing political party? The first example that comes to mind is the former Soviet Union. Indeed, Prime Minister Paul Martin borrowed a leaf from Stalin's book by expelling "for life" 10 former supporters of Jean Chrétien from the Liberal Party.

This crass move is mere show: A prime minister doesn't have this kind of power; the president of the party's Quebec wing, MP Pablo Rodriguez, says he doesn't even know how such a ban could be legally implemented.

In any case, Mr. Martin's use of excommunication is unworthy of a democratic leader. Even though they were mentioned in the Gomery report, none of the 10 men have been charged. And even if some of them are eventually charged and convicted, don't we live in a country where one can be rehabilitated after having paid his dues to society?

All this shows is that, for Mr. Martin, the kid-glove treatment he received from Mr. Justice John Gomery is not enough. He will go to any lengths to pour all the blame for Adscam on the Chrétien clan. But many people won't believe that the man who was Quebec's most important minister had no idea of what was going on. The sponsorship scandal first erupted in the media at the end of 1999. Didn't Mr. Martin read any newspapers?

At the time, Mr. Martin was busy taking control of the Liberals, so, obviously, he knew the party inside out. He was constantly on the Liberal fundraising cocktail and golf circuit, where he would rub elbows with many of the players involved in Adscam: party officials, Liberal admen and bagmen, fundraisers and contributors. And he never heard any rumours about kickbacks? Mr. Martin was not personally responsible for the sponsorship special fund, but, as finance minister, he was the guardian of the public purse. Why didn't he raise any objections? Why didn't he at least ask questions?

Strangely, these points are not mentioned in Judge Gomery's report. Under the sympathetic pen of Judge Gomery, the Prime Minister emerges as a lily-white knight - or rather, as some kind of alien who was in the Liberal Party, admittedly, but lived on another planet.

Judge Gomery took off the gloves, though, when he dealt with the other players. With zeal, he demolished reputations, relying in good part on his own impressions. His report, far from being a judgment resulting from a fair trial, is a subjective, albeit valid, document.

This is the problem with commissions of inquiry: They don't respect the strict rules that govern trials. They don't have to establish rock-solid proof before blaming or exonerating a witness. And, contrary to the golden rule that is the basis of our judicial system, the "accused" (technically a witness) does not benefit from the presumption of innocence.

And so, after having trashed former long-time bureaucrat Chuck Guité as "a man without scruples," Judge Gomery, on a key point, chose to believe Mr. Guité rather than Jean Pelletier, Mr. Chrétien's former chief of staff - as if Mr. Pelletier, a man with a long and honourable career, shouldn't have been more credible than Mr. Guité, who has been charged with fraud.

Judge Gomery thinks that Jean Lafleur (who hasn't been charged with anything) wasn't credible, but that adman Jean Brault was. Mr. Brault, who has been charged with fraud and whose testimony at the Gomery inquiry was contradicted on many points by other witnesses, was, according to Judge Gomery, "candid and trustworthy."

Mr. Brault was Judge Gomery's star witness because his sensational revelations revived public interest in his commission and made the judge, who had been accused of bias against Mr. Chrétien, a national hero. Some who followed the Gomery commission closely believe that Mr. Brault decided to bring down as many Liberals as possible with him (a frequent reflex of informers), but Judge Gomery doesn't appear to have considered this hypothesis.

...

 

November 7, 2005 - Okay, I don't know what's worse: Ashlee Simpson loaded out of her mind (such as it is), or Ben Mulroney with an actual scoop. Funny, either way.

 

November 6, 2005 – A picture is worth a thousand words, etc. This one is pretty darn accurate, I’d say. (From the Oracle of Ottawa.)

 

November 5, 2005 - I am outraged to be called "mainstream." And Wells will be outraged to be lumped in with Yours Screwly.

Also: the Globe poll. Told ya so, told ya so, etc. etc. If the Opposition doesn't push for an election now, when they have a chance, my highly scientific analysis is that they are all on crack.

The story:

***

Gomery report revs up bloggers: Wild theories abound in Internet's blogosphere
Carly Weeks, CanWest News Service

OTTAWA -- As the Liberal party tries to convince Canadians the Gomery report is behind them, bloggers have been busy hatching conspiracy theories and giving their off-colour take on the prime minister's involvement with the sponsorship scandal.

"Before this report came out, I pointed out that Gomery is a Liberal judge, appointed to this role by Paul Martin," wrote Toronto Tory on www.smalldeadanimals.com. "This is a carefully scripted performance. Paul Martin is lying to Canadians."

Among theories floating around the blogosphere is that Gomery is actually a Conservative who used his power to tear the Liberals apart.

"If there is one common theme underneath all the headlines this week in Ottawa, it is that we'll soon witness the second major battle of the Liberal civil war," wrote Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor.

"We'll see the Chretienites and the Martinites take their sides on the left and right flanks in a brutal battle that will eventually either rip apart the party or prop up some sap that will continue to oversee the war."

Other blog entries say it's time for an election to put a stop to the political spin and infighting from the sponsorship scandal.

"The Liberal party has a bad case of Gomeria -- one which can only be cured by voters," wrote stowaway on www.smalldeadanimals.com.

While mainstream bloggers, such as Warren Kinsella or Paul Wells, have focused this week on the possibility of a Christmas election or the media's coverage of the Gomery report, others have spent time discussing the morals -- or lack thereof -- of their favourite political parties.

In fact, trash talk between some Conservative and Liberal bloggers -- ranging from jokes about the prime minister's weight to the absence of cabinet minister Belinda Stronach during the Gomery fallout -- has erupted into an electronic ground war.

One of the more creative slams to the left came from a blogger, dubbed Analogue, who posted this Haiku poem on a Liberal blog: "Left's moral blindspot/Wider than Reg Alcock's ass/Silly hypocrites!"

Bloggers have been taking increasingly offensive cracks at the government, like this one posted by Moose Max on www.xanga.com, in response to the the fact the prime minister was exonerated of any wrongdoing by Gomery: "Apparently Paul Martin has the same deal with Satan that the Clintons have."

Or this post by Technical Bard, a blogger in Calgary, which compares the Liberal party to the mob: "While I think Gomery has done as good a job as he could, there simply weren't enough people willing to come forward with incriminating information -- and the close-knit Librano family wouldn't flip on the Godfather or even the underbosses enough for us to seriously ask for prison time."

Bloggers have even started hurling direct insults and accusing each other of having no integrity, making the blogosphere resemble the transcripts of question period.

Maritime Liberal, a blogger in Nova Scotia, has even started an online petition to protest a "fundamental lack of respect" that has emerged in the blogosphere this week.

No matter what their political allegiance, bloggers by and large aren't ready to let the Gomery report go.

One enterprising Conservative blogger has even decided to capitalize on the political fallout from the Gomery report.

Angry in the Great White North has started selling pins, magnets and mugs that say: "Banned for life and proud of it," a play on Martin's decision to ban 10 people implicated in the scandal from the Liberal party.

It was later revealed that seven of the 10 are no longer members and a hearings must be held in order to ban the other three.

"Banned for life?" wrote Angry in the Great White North.


"All I can say is: Those lucky bastards!"

Ottawa Citizen

***

 

November 4, 2005 - Oh my God, yo, what's poppin'? Holy frick! Like, dude, this is so cool. It's bent. I'm getting the mack on, pawtna. No diggity. Way.

 

November 4, 2005 - This was difficult to do, but I had to do it. Let me know what you think.

And, while you are at it, maybe you can enlighten me as to why so many Tories - federally, provincially - are working for Big Tobacco.

 

November 4, 2005 - I guess I'm not the only one who smells election!

Memo to Dipper friends: cozying up to the current regime hasn't helped you. In this poll, it has hurt you. Time for a new strategy, Jack.

***

Canada Liberals hit hard by scandal
Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:43:28 PM ET

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Public support for Canada's ruling Liberals has dropped sharply in the wake of a damaging report into a government corruption scandal, a new poll said on Thursday.

The Ipsos-Reid poll for Global Television put public support for the Liberals at 31 percent, down from 38 percent before the report was released on Tuesday. The opposition Conservatives were at 30 percent, up from 26 percent.

The poll findings indicate that if an election were held now, the result would be a deadlock, with no one party anywhere near winning a majority of seats in Parliament.

© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved.

***

 

November 3, 2005 - Heading out to do a speech before a global conference to defeat Big Tobacco (and you can guess who I'll be talking about).

Saw this in my statistics. More than 50,000 a couple days ago - and look who was in the top three visitors! Ha ha ha ha!

1. adsl-68-77-15-102.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net
   
   
2. tenebril.com
   
   
3. gateout.pco.gc.ca

November 3, 2005 - I smell election. It's coming.

Harper: policy, hope, you love the country.

Layton: get away from Martin's blast radius, fast.

Duceppe: keep doing what you're doing. It works.

Martin: go jump in a lake with the rest of the "rookie mistake" gang.

Hoo boy. This one's going to be fun.

 

November 3, 2005 - I participated in panel at U of T last night - along with the National Post's Andrew Coyne, and pollster Michael Adams - to celebrate and discuss the launch of Stephen Clarkson's amazing new book about the Liberal Party of Canada, The Big Red Machine. Naturally, I had a few criticisms to dole about Paul Martin Junior and the way in which he and his cabal are running Canada. Equally unsurprising was the fact that the session - which was ably moderated by the CBC's Michael Enright - spent quite a bit of time discussing Gomery and his biased report's impact on Chrétien, Martin and Clarkson's "Big Red Machine."

What struck me most was that many of the people in attendance, more than 100 in all, expressed doubt to me afterwards about the "Junior exonerated" horseshit - and also about the fairness of the commissioner.

That's seen, clearly, in today's papers. Herewith, your morning talking points:

• "QUEBECKERS SKEPTICAL OF PM'S EXONERATION...Poll shows majority believe Gomery inquiry failed to shed light on all wrongdoing...Callers to open-line radio and television shows yesterday...but did not accept his report's exoneration of Prime Minister Paul Martin's role in the sponsorship program...In a straw poll taken by the TVA television network, more than 70 per cent said they didn't believe the Gomery report shed light on all wrongdoing." - The Globe and Mail
  
  
• "DISCORD GROWS WITHIN PARTY OVER MARTIN'S TREATMENT OF CHRÉTIEN...Mr. Chrétien's former principal adviser accused Mr. Martin on national television of not being respectful of the former prime minister's record in government and contributions to the Liberal Party...concerns were expressed [by caucus members] about the Martin-Chrétien rift..." - The Globe and Mail
  
  
• "It was a well-staged piece of theatre, craftily timed to steal some headlines from the jumped-up judge and the vengeful Boy Scout who called the inquiry in the first place.  [Mr. Chrétien] shrugged and showered his enemies with contempt and, by the end, the assembled attack kittens of the media were laughing and shaking their heads in admiration...But Mr. Martin doesn't seem to have a strategy at all, unless you call special no-strings Quebec-only deals on health care and day care a strategy.  You couldn't find two guys more different than the brawler and the Boy Scout." - Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail
  
  
• "The report failed to make the case; it wasn't even close.  But Judge Gomery's findings were enough to prompt Mr. Chrétien to come before the media and make an effective counterattack...Outfoxed by Mr. Chrétien [again]..." - Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail
  
  
• "...a vintage performance...At times during [his] news conference, he was [funny]....He suggested he wasn't afraid to make decisions, implying the opposite about Mr. Martin, who has been dubbed 'Mr. Dithers'..." - The Globe and Mail
  
  
• "Gomery has shown a curious pattern of selective believability in his parade of witnesses. Take that Gomery-christened "charming scamp" Chuck Guite, the bureaucrat who manipulated sponsorship contracts for friends and eventually retired to a lucrative payback. Gomery finds Guite to "be a man without scruples," a character assassination he helpfully highlights in green ink lest we miss the point.  He says Guite was "not only an unreliable witness, he simply has no credibility" on pivotal points. Yet Gomery eagerly accepts Guite's testimony as truth over the words of Jean Pelletier..." - Don Martin, National Post
  
  
• "If, as Gomery concluded, Chrétien was guilty of a sin of omission, it's hard to accept that other ministers [like Martin], who had sworn as privy councillors to declare their minds and opinions to one another "faithfully, honestly and truly," didn't share a bit of guilt too." - The Times-Colonist
  
  
• "SKEPTICISM LINGERS DESPITE FINDINGS; MARTIN MUST HAVE KNOWN ABOUT SCANDAL...I don't believe for a minute that Paul Martin didn't know that the scandal was going on. Being finance minister at the time and overlooking $300 million just doesn't wash. If he was incompetent, yes. But Martin is too savvy." - Letter, Edmonton Journal
  
  
• And this one in the Post, of course, which I will link to but not quote. Read it and you will know why.

 

November 2, 2005 - I can't say who, but I was just talking to a former privy councilor - and I can't say who, but it isn't necessarily who you think - and we were both laughing about my take on yesterday, which was this:

"Let's see. The Martinite jerks and Gomery Chretien-haters work for two years, and spend $100 million, to get Chretien with a biased, bullshit Ken Starr-type inquisition. Two years! One hundred million bucks! And Chretien comes in, wipes the floor with them in thirty minutes, doesn't spend a cent, then goes home to watch the hockey game. Chretien wins again, without breaking into a sweat."

We were laughing at that, and my friend said I should put that up on my little website.

So I just did.

 

November 2, 2005 - He's smart, that Harper fellow. (A lot of his new staff, too.) Thank goodness at least one Tory has figured out that Martin's name is the one on the ballot, not Chretien's.

The stuff about who pays for the legal bills is bullshit, and he and his guys know it, but they probably had to say it for political reasons.

Memo to Blogging Tories: pay attention to your leader. He understands why defending Gomery 24/7 is/was a massive strategic error - because Gomery was always intending on "exonerating" Martin. Bottom line: Gomery is your enemy, not your friend.

...

Taxpayers should not pay for a Chretien appeal, Harper says (Gomery-Politics)
Source: The Canadian Press
Nov 2, 2005 12:53

OTTAWA- Stephen Harper says he's sympathetic to Jean Chretien's complaint of bias in the Gomery report, but doesn't think taxpayers should foot the bill for his appeal of the sponsorship inquiry findings.

The Conservative leader says the problem is that the terms of reference for the inquiry did not look at Prime Minister Paul Martin's contracting as finance minister.

Harper says he doesn't think the commission or its report were biased, but thinks it could be argued that its terms of reference were biased against Chretien. Harper says Chretien has every right to appeal Justice John Gomery's findings, but Canadians should not be on the hook for more legal bills Chretien might run up. (CP)

...

 

November 2, 2005 – Two quick points before I get to your daily media summary.

1. See, Conservatives and NDP?  This is why I was telling you not to suspend your critical faculties about Gomery.  The terms of reference were rigged, the commission was partisan, and the commissioner was wildly biased.  He was ALWAYS going to say Paul Martin should be “exonerated” (cf. my 1,453,292 musings on the subject).  Now that he has, you guys aren’t going to be able to distance yourselves from him – you got too damn close. Boy, do you guys need help (possibly even mine)…and, if Bloc Quebecois founder Jean Lapierre had banned this "inexperienced political staff person" (source: John Gomery) from the Liberal Party, yesterday, that’s certainly what I’d be doing this morning, with relish!
   
   
   
2. I don’t know about this “Liberal civil war re-opened” stuff in the papers, this morning.  From my perspective, quite a few of us have been on a blood-drenched war footing for about a decade now.  But I do know I like some of the verbiage in today’s papers.  Apart from Ed Greenspon’s spit-flecked, screwball rant in the Glib and Frail – undoubtedly the result of Ed’s ongoing distemper that my friend thought ‘Double Vision’ was not very good at all, and ridiculously one-sided, and as slanted as the Gomery Report – the words ain’t bad.  Ain’t bad at all:
   
   

“CHRETIEN FIGHTS BACK…Chretien took to the stage at the National Press Theatre to a packed house.  It was a remarkable performance, in turn feisty, argumentative, flamboyant, even seductive…” – Toronto Star

“…[Chretien was] feisty…[Martin is] plodding and out of touch…” – The Globe and Mail

“CHRETIEN BLASTS BACK…a vintage performance [by Jean Chretien]… Mr. Chretien also pointedly said that when he was prime minister, he had no trouble making decisions. (Mr. Martin has been nicknamed Mr. Dithers by some for his indecisiveness.)” – National Post

“…Mr Chretien was robust in his rejection of the inquiry's findings.” – BBC

“Chretien was unrepentant and pugnacious in an hour-long news conference that featured almost as many salvos aimed at his successor, Paul Martin, as his tormentor, Justice John Gomery…” – Canadian Press

“Former Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien, bristling with defiance, emerged from the political twilight on Tuesday to attack the head of an inquiry who blamed him for a government kickback scandal…"You have to make decisions that are not popular. If there was one thing with me, I was always happy to make a decision," he said to laughter.  Martin is often criticized by the media and his opponents for being chronically indecisive.” – CNN

November 1, 2005 - Okay, yes, I confess: I love that man (you know who).

But, c'mon: even any of you who are partisan opponents have to love this moment:

...

(Voice of Translator): TODAY IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD BE BANNED FROM THE LIBERAL PARTY FOR LIFE. AMONG OTHERS, Mr. MICHEL BELIVEAU WHO WAS ONE OF YOUR ENTOURAGE, AFTER ALL. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF BANISHING SOMEONE FROM A PARTY FOR LIFE?

Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien: (Voice of Translator): WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S THAT KIND OF REGULATION IN THE PARTY STATUTES.

THERE ARE VARIOUS STATUTES IN VARIOUS PROVINCES. I NEVER THOUGHT I HAD THAT POWER. IF I'D HAD IT, WELL....( LAUGHTER ). I MAY HAVE USED IT ON MANY OCCASIONS, IN PARTICULAR, REGARDING Mr. LAPIERRE WHEN HE FOUNDED OR HELPED FOUND THE BLOC QUEBECOIS. I WOULD HAVE BANISHED HIM FOR LIFE. I'M NOT SURE HE'S GOING TO BE A FEDERALIST IF THINGS GO BADLY HERE. SO I WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM HIS WALKING PAPERS IN PERSON...

...

I am reliably informed when he said that, the Liberal caucus lobby - behind the curtains in the House of Commons - erupted in applause and a standing ovation.

Take that, Junior.

 

November 1, 2005 - I am watching CTV's coverage of the Gomery report on a WestJet plane heading to Winnipeg. It's as good a place to watch a circus as any, I suppose.

Some quick reactions:

• Gomery utterly destroys his credibility - and exposes his flagrant bias - when he actually states that the evidence "exonerates" Paul Martin. Gomery and Martin certainly want Canadians to believe that, but they won't. The guy who wrote the "Cher Claude" letter about sponsorship dollars knew nothing? The guy who was forced to admit he wrote the cheques? The guy who attended Quebec caucus and Quebec minister meetings, where sponsorship was regularly discussed, knew nothing? Bullshit. It's a bald-faced lie, and Canadians know it.
  
  
• Try as he might, Gomery's $80 million inquisition could not find any evidence, whatsoever, of Jean Chrétien and Jean Pelletier having any personal involvement or culpability in wrongdoing. That's what he and the Martinites wanted most of all, so great is their well-documented hatred for Jean Chrétien. But they didn't get it.
  
  
• Gomery disregarded evidence. He quoted evidence wrongly. He spun evidence, he even seemed to make evidence up. His objective - as Ipsos public opinion polls bear out - was to smear a man he had called "small town cheap" and assorted other insults. Canadians know that, too. That's why Canadians loved Chrétien's golf ball jest - because they loved seeing the Shawinigan streetfighter make short work of the imperious, loose-lipped Westmount judge.
  
  
• Chrétien called in the AG. Chrétien called in the Mounties. Chrétien was the guy who moved on this mess first, not Paul Martin. That's the facts.
  
  
• In his self-aggrandizing press statement, done shortly after the report was tabled in the House of Commons, Gomery slipped - and, in so doing, revealed a truth. He insisted, defensively, that he was "the sole author." Why would he do that? Judges always author their own decisions, don't they? Yes, mainly. But in this case, those of us who closely followed this circus saw who John Gomery chose to surround himself with, and rely upon, time and time again: Brian Mulroney's best friend. Brian Mulroney's law firm. Brian Mulroney's Chief of Staff (two of them, in fact). A goodly portion of Brian Mulroney's cabinet. Brian Mulroney's cronies. Gomery may be "the sole author" - but he was aided and abetted, throughout, by Brian Mulroney's team. And the team was paid for by Gomery and Mulroney's Westmount neighbour: Paul Martin.

 

November 1, 2005- Enroute to Winnipeg.

After scanning the daily PMO talking points - that would be the Globe and Mail - I realize my good friends at Langevin have a bit of a conundrum.

They can lie and prevaricate, as they have in the Globe, and insist that Paul Martin Junior knew nothing. But they know (as Ipsos made clear on the weekend) no fully-conscious Canadian believes that for a moment.

But if "the Board" accept that Martin did know, they think they risk losing their minority government. (They're wrong in this, however. Canadians would reward Martin if he does not insult their intelligence, and insist he was the Parliamentary equivalent of Sgt. Schultz on Hogan's Heroes.) So they're on the horns of a proverbial dilemma, aren't they? It looks good on them.

Anyway, before the Blackberry goes off, some key facts to recall:

1. The sponsorship scandal came to light when Chretien was Prime Minister, not after he had left office.
   
   
2. He called in the Auditor General.
   
   
3. When he and Don Boudria heard what she had to say, he called in the RCMP. Those were not the actions of man who had something to hide.
   
   
4. He kept his cool, and the LPC remained above 55 per cent in the polls.
   
   
5. When Paul Martin took over, however, he started running around the country like a hysterical teenager – in his celebrated “mad as Hell” tour.
   
   
6. As noted in Stephen Clarkson’s outstanding new book, Martin then created a commission of inquiry with rigged terms of reference (rigged to avoid scrutiny of contracting practices at Martin's Department of Finance) that became a platform for innuendo and hearsay, led by a commissioner whose hatred for Chretien is only exceeded by his choice of commission legal counsel (um, Brian Mulroney's best friend and Chief of Staff), and which lacked any of the powers/abilities of the RCMP (who were already investigating the matter anyway).
   
   Am I forgetting anything?
   
   
7. As a result of all this, Paul Martin dropped the party by nearly 20 points, and pooched federalism in Quebec for some years to come. It has yet to recover. If there is a referendum in the next short while – and there will be – Canada will lose it.

You're welcome. See you in the 'Peg.