babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Conservative election subversion #9 (robofraud robocalls)
July 6, 2012 - 11:22am
Continued from here:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/conservative-election-subversi...
We've been following three ongoing actions, and here are the latest updates:
Etobicoke Centre:
CBC is reporting that Elections Canada has finally found reports on 44 of the disputed votes, which may substantially effect Borys Wrzesnewskyj's case.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/05/pol-etobicoke-centre-opitz-wzresnewskyj-elections-canada.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Council of Canadians case:
The prothonotary is expected to rule on whether the case goes to court on Monday, July 9th.
Dean Del Mastro:
Still in office, now with allegations of cheating on financing, using his cousin to funnel funds and publicly lying about knowing about the investigation. Though the only reports in major media seem to be that the investigation is upsetting his family.
Del Mastro the Victim.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/06/elections-canada-proper-to-cauti...
So, in Del Mastro's mind it is completely unfair that EC be allowed to use what he says.
He believes he should be able to say, as he has in the past, any damn thing he wants along with a guarantee he can't be called on it.
And then, if he happens tells the truth, it can't be used in court.
That would satisfy Del Mastro's definition of "dialogue".
I can hardly wait for the "law and order" Harper government to make The Del Mastro Principle the law for all suspected crimes.
I can just see the discussion in the police station now (cartoon anyone?):
"We picked up a suspect but he says he'd rather not have a cautioned statement, but says he will provide us with all the details of what he did in a "dialogue"."
So why is the press not jumping long and hard all over this absurdity?
Oh yeah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006
And the Citizen is reporting that EC is just following proper protocol in allowing only cautioned meetings.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Elections+Canada+following+proper+proc...
Re: the Etobicoke Centre post.
Elections Canada files last minute motion which appears to aid Con MP Opitz's appeal to stop the overturn of the election results.
EC with its newly reminted former Harper appointee Commissioner has presented new evidence.
From the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/05/pol-etobicoke-centre-opitz-wzresnewskyj-elections-canada.html
Did EC's last minute intervention draw attention to the latter information, or would that just "complicate" things?
In further news with Dean Del Mastro, he is now saying he will meet with Elections Canada under a cautioned meeting.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Liberals+seek+reconvene+committee+Mast...
How much longer are people going to put childish faith in Dereliction Canada (aka Elections Canada) as it blusters and puts on its pacifying show of phony "process"?
From Democracy Watch (includes links to ruling in question and others) :
http://dwatch.ca/camp/RelsJuly1212.html
I dont put any faith in Elections Canada.
I'm open to concrete proposals on alternatives to relying on them to do their job. 'Relying' includes pressuring them. But being as this is a bureaucracy, concrete proposals even for pressure are in order.
Notably, Democracy Watch doesnt rail at them as people are prone to here.
What? Democracy Watch gives a legally informed assessment of the behaviour of Elections Canada; as Babble is a board of opinions, opinion is what I have given--yet there is no substantial difference in my analysis of EC's actions which precipitate my "railing".
So when you hold up Democracy Watch a figure of sobriety as opposed to my "railing", it obscures the fact that you have been a persistent apologist for EC's behaviour in previous threads--in refutation of the analysis I share with Democracy Watch. I will cite just one example for now:
http://rabble.ca/comment/1324526
I beg to differ that your 'opinion' is just like Democracy Watch's.
And the difference gets back to the question above you didnt answer more than once:
Democracy Watch pressures Democracy Watch to do its job. Where you quoted me, I was talking about the case we had been discussing- and said that in that case, EC is commited to getting to the bottom of it. Show us where Democracy Watch says different.
There is a big difference between pressuring EC, and burning down the house. DW is very clear about what to do instead of waiting around for EC. What you have in mind other than venting your opinion as you seem to put it, I have no idea.
By the way, it has been all quiet on the Del Mastro front for a week or so. So, maybe there is a resignation coming up?
Or...
He has [or had] that interview with the investigator. The party's lawyer would be there and collecting as much hard information as he can on what the investigators actually have. That may have been a big part of why Del Mastro did the about face about not talking under the 'legal caution': the party is tired of working blind on scraps they can get from the media and what the idiot Del Mastro decides to remember and tell them.
So they will be doing their assessing after that interview... not seriously thinking of cutting Del Mastro loose to limit their losses until after they have all the information thay can get. Looks pretty cut and dried from out here, but they'll be looking for feasible loopholes.
Del Masto would of course be willing to 'stand his ground' on the thinnest of legal cases, but I dont think the party will want to drag this out in court until the next election if there is little chance of them winning.
Try reading before typing.
Your repeated fabrication that Democracy Watch is trying to "pressure" Elections Canada is not born out by anything.
Democracy Watch clearly has no more faith in Elections Canada being influenced by the logic of justice than I have.
Part of Democracy Watch's repeated commentaries on EC is that the [my particular "railing" words here] arbitrary, imperious and non-transparent operation can only be amended through an outside "Public Inquiry".
Democracy Watch makes this absolutely explicit in its subheading to article I just linked which you supposedly commented on:
Contrast that with your comment on my and others suggestion for a public inquiry:
Post #31, here:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/harpers-black-ops-scandal-robo...
As for the Saanich-Gulf Islands which it closed, not because its resources were stretched thin but because it gave specious reasons for it not being serious that have clearly been used as an internal precedent by EC--as well as a green light for latter robofrauds --as was warned as outcomes by myself, Democracy Watch, and many others. Again, made explicit in the DW post I linked.
=====
Now, to the question of what to do.
Whether the Public Inquiry called for by Democracy Watch, myself, and many others, actually will be allowed by the Harper regime is another question. The obvious answer to that question is "NO", but it DOES highlight the pervasive lack of credibility of Elections Canada as it stands. And the knowledge of this is itself mandatory.
Public acceptance of this unpleasant reality has two, limited but necessary, benefits:
1) As EC makes determinations which follow its Saanich-Gulf Islands model (as described by Dem. Watch) , people will be less likely to be placated by the mere dog and pony show that "process has be done". It is absolutely necessary that people not be placated into thinking this lapdog watchdog's determinations represent the checks and balances of a democracy.
2)As the lesson of #1) sinks in, people must realize they cannot "be patient" as EC's subteranean machinations work there way to the surface in an ineffectual fart. Other means, however limited in effect, must be pursued, such as demonstrations and possible legal challenges. Additionally, when elections are held it must be highly publicized by parties and others that there is no real protection from fraud to be had by this compromized watchdog. Election time warnings given to voters with specifics of the lack of protection and the types of fraud to watch out for must be pervasive. Ideally, the opposition" parties could make a joint news conference explaining the lack of protection and what kinds of fraudulent action to watch for (though getting the multiple parties to agree on anything, even when democracy is at stake, is problematic).
In terms of what to do and solutions, the issue is much bigger than how ineffectual EC is or is not. As well as a new watchdog, need one with several times greater resources.
Even an elections junkie and someone keen on the principles of democracy like me, that is never going to come to the top of my list of things that get me motivated to work on, given the alternative issues I devote my time to.
It might be different when there is leadership instead of sermons.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to foolishly hope for the best out of what we have got.
The council of canadians case will proceed. That will move much faster then Elections Canada, but I wonder if they would be called as witnesses.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/19/conservatives-lose-bid-to-block-...
I think Brian-Michel Larue, or unfuckwithable, is about to release his ebook.
Can he have what he says he has?
http://unfuckwithable.ca/
I just read that page, and it would appear to me that the guy is a total loon. He needs medical attention.
LaRue has now been talking this stuff for a long time with little or no product.
That in itself is neither encouraging nor (if he actually had anything) prudent.
The words "put up or shut up come to mind" also, "don't hold your breath".
doublepost
I've been watching his posts and think there is a reasonable chance he's got what he says he's got. He stopped blogging for about a month since he blogged pictures of boxes of printed material, when he said he'd disappear and write an ebook with all the material. He claims he's tried to send material to the media but nobody would take him seriously or work out a way for him to get credit so he decided to write an ebook. As for the emails and info, I suspec that its quite possible that some pissed of conservative insider leaked him some way into the conservative network. I have no idea about the banking info, it doesn't sound likely unless they were foolish enough to pass that info through emails, which I suppose is possible.
Del Mastro screwed himself over by pissing off someone he hired to do work he didn't report, I'm sure its possible someone high up was pissed off enough to leak this info.
And as for what he says he's got, it sounds to me like its very possible that the last election was stolen. We know about the robocalls, calls in 200 ridings don't happen by chance or by some overkeen assistant. You've got to have a program.
You might be right, madmax, but I a believe you may not be. There is enough history with this government to make me believe the charges Larue is talking of could be quite legit. As for his knowledge, I admit its a stretch but possible if an insider got as pissed or more pissed as in Del Mastro's trouble.
But now I'm having serious worries and doubts about the impartiality of Elections Canada. CBC just posted an article detailing issues with EC's 'additional new information' they found in the Etobicoke Centre case. According to Wrzesnewskyj, a number of the cases of found information on voters was fudged. Voters were found on the elections list and sent to the Supreme Court without telling the Supreme Court that those voters were on the lists but in different ridings, making them illegible to vote in Etobicoke. Also he found that they used similar spellings of handwritten names with the excuse that the writing was hard to read but came up with names that were quite different, straining their credibility.
If Wrzesnewskyj's charges are correct, EC cannot be considered impartial anymore, which makes the work of the Council of Canadians and unfuckwithable much more important.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/24/pol-wrzesnewskyj-opitz-...
And now the post and citizen are reporting that a lawyer representing disgruntled workers for Del Mastro's cousin, who reported that $1000 donations were illegally funnelled through them, tried to call Elections Canada to offer to testify in exchange for immunity from Revenue Canada but that EC was not interested.
I would say that's the correct behaviour, but its only correct if you are not planning on giving the case to the RCMP or relevant authority. If you were, you'd say, 'we can't do that, but these are the people who will be prosecuting'.....
This article gives me the impression that EC may not press charges at all with Del Mastro's cousin, which you'd think they'd be interested in at least checking out if they were passing the Del Mastro case on.
That's what it looks like to me, but I'm a political outsider, please correct me if there is a better interpretation.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/24/elections-canada-rejects-offer-f...
When the watchdog of Canadian democracy is a toothless lapdog, there is a temptation to believe in the tooth fairy.
And the lapdog-watchdog is behaving true to form as your link indicates:
http://www.canada.com/news/Elections+Canada+refuses+immunity+request+don...
Although EC isn't much intersted in talking to the donors themselves, they seem VERY concerned that the donors shouldn't talk to the media. Curious, that.
My question in post #4 as to whether EC's last minute intervention in Etobicoke Centre challenge on behalf of the Cons contained all the relevant information appears to be answered:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/07/24/pol-wrzesnewskyj-opitz-el...
And the list of Harper appointees in trouble just keeps growing. Charlie Angus noted that the Cons only acknowledge their ethical problems after they are caught (and then offer some lame excuse). To appoint a fraudster like Bruce Carson, who Harper admits that he knew had a criminal record, says everything you need to know about his ethics. Here's a list of recent culprits.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/RCMP+charges+former+Tory+adviser+Bruce+...
"Carson, 66, is charged with one count of fraud on the government, also known as influence peddling, contrary to the Criminal Code...
It subsequently came to light that Carson was hired by the Prime Minister's Office in 2006 despite having a criminal record, which he disclosed at the time. That revelation prompted opposition questions about screening processes inside the PMO. ...
Dean Del Mastro, Harper's parliamentary secretary, has denied allegations by Elections Canada that he exceeded spending limits in the 2008 election campaign and then took steps to cover it up.
Earlier this week, the former campaign manager for federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue apologized for mistakes and omissions in paperwork after a review found Penashue's team overspent the legal limit by $4,000.
And Industry Minister Christian Paradis, formerly Canada's minister of public works, was cautioned by the ethics commissioner after he directed bureaucrats in his department to set up meetings in 2009 with two firms in his Quebec riding.
Paradis subsequently acknowledged the commissioner's comments and insisted there was nothing untoward about the meetings.
In all three cases, none of the allegations has been proven in court and no charges have been laid."
Elections Canada: shill in the Con shell game of "democracy"
http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2012/08/elections-canada-now-comatose.shtml