From here.
They Oda know better Part II
Thu, 2011-02-17 11:07
#1
They Oda know better Part II
Thu, 2011-02-17 13:54
#2
The Liberals tabled a foreign affairs committee report in the House of Commons Thursday that opens the door to possible sanctions against the international co-operation minister for possibly breaching parliamentary privilege.
The move comes after the committee sent a request Wednesday night to Speaker Peter Milliken to investigate Bev Oda for misleading the committee last December over the cancellation of funding for the aid agency Kairos.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/02/17/oda-parliament.html#ixzz1EFBQ6cHG
Thu, 2011-02-17 16:40
#3
Would firing Bev Oda win any votes for Harper? 
NIK NANOS is on Mr. Harper's side. "Fire the minister? I think 'not'," he says.
The president of Nanos Research doesn't see any upside for the Prime Minister in dismissing Ms. Oda. Rather, her firing would be viewed as an admission of two mistakes.
"First, that perhaps the minister appointed was not up for the job," he says. "Second, that a mistake was made in a ministerial decision."
Besides, Mr. Nanos argues, it's unlikely Mr. Harper believes "the decision itself was a mistake."
"Hence, any displeasure on his part is likely due to the process and not the outcome," Mr. Nanos says, adding that had she approved the application "that would more likely put her in the cross-hairs of the Prime Minister."
The pollster says these sorts of events merely reinforce existing attitudes Canadians have about the Prime Minister.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/would-firin...
Thu, 2011-02-17 16:47
#4
this is a moment the opposition parties should come to agree and collectively buy an ad decrying Con attacks on rule of law and democracy-- then they can go back to pounding each other. This would be credible and it would look good and most of all it would have an impression on people that his goes beyond the usual partisanship into a whole new type of nastiness.
Interesting idea.
Thu, 2011-02-17 19:50
#5
Would firing Bev Oda win any votes for Harper?
Would letting the government get away with their disgusting behavior win any votes for the opposition?
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:11
#6
I think we should start doing a better job teaching ethics in our society. This isn't about votes, this is about integrity.
If we lived in an ethical society, there would be no questions concerning these kinds of acts of duplicity.
Having an election called over this issue would be a great way for society to consider an ethical question. The process itself would likely make Canada a more ethical society.
Let's have an election over the question:
Is it accpetable for the Government to lie to Parliament?
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:19
#7
It's about power - who has it, and who doesn't. Harper obviously has it and has been wielding it successfully so far.
Tempest in the teapot here, and it will blow over soon.
Kinda reminds me of our discussions about an election this year - As Ken so accurately put it, Harper, and Harper alone will decide whether or not we go to the polls.
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:25
#8
It's about power - who has it, and who doesn't. Harper obviously has it and has been wielding it successfully so far.
Is this the first draft of the Conservative's campaign slogan for the election?
It's kind of dated. It was used in Germany almost three quarters of a century ago.
The Conservatives can use those old NAZI posters. All you have to do is substitute the letters "arp" with the letters "itl".
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:29
#9
Tempest in the teapot here, and it will blow over soon.
Speaking of slogans, wasn't this the slogan used by the opposition in Germany?
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:33
#10
As Ken so accurately put it, Harper, and Harper alone will decide whether or not we go to the polls.
Zieg Heil.
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:34
#11
It's about power - who has it, and who doesn't. Harper obviously has it and has been wielding it successfully so far.
Tempest in the teapot here, and it will blow over soon.
Kinda reminds me of our discussions about an election this year - As Ken so accurately put it, Harper, and Harper alone will decide whether or not we go to the polls.
Please explain than why with such a weak opposition Harper has only on occassion creeped over 40%. Harper is not all that successful and he is vulnerable because Canadians don't really like him and have this little voice in the back of their heads telling them they could do better. He has zero in terms of a legislative track record. All he has been good at is being a bully, but you know what eventually the kids take on the bully and almost always beat him.
Thu, 2011-02-17 20:51
#12
We have seen what has gone since Reagan took power. I don't like it but it is reality.
How long has it been now since such an unpopular guy has been PM. I think it is more than 5 years now that I have been hearing this nonsense. The official opposition has basically kept this guy in power because they mainly agree with his right-wing policies. The kids, as you put it, are not in any way united, and so they don't stand a chance.
Thu, 2011-02-17 21:27
#13
Nice dodge. I did not only say official opposition.
Thu, 2011-02-17 21:35
#14
Ignatieff had his chance with a coalition government and the Liberals blew it plain and simple. You only get a few kicks at the can.
Thu, 2011-02-17 23:22
#15
The official opposition has basically kept this guy in power because they mainly agree with his right-wing policies.
The Liberals certainly do. Remember their plan to eliminate child poverty? How many Chretien majority governments did it take to increase child poverty?
Fri, 2011-02-18 03:33
#16
Fri, 2011-02-18 04:42
#17
In defending Oda, Harper stands alone
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/940899--hebert-in-defending-o...
Fri, 2011-02-18 04:53
#18
Hebert makes a great observation:
If Harper was the leader of the official opposition, he would already be taking steps to withdraw the confidence of the House from the government.
Fri, 2011-02-18 09:02
#19
Tempest in the teapot here, and it will blow over soon.
Speaking of slogans, wasn't this the slogan used by the opposition in Germany?
Zeig heil
JKR, inferring that NR is a nazi is an ad hominen attack of the worst kind and violates babble policy. You are warned.
Fri, 2011-02-18 09:50
#20
Hi Rebecca, I totally support responding to attacks-- I just wanted to suggest that in this case I did not read it that way at all. I thought JKR's comment was about the situation not the poster.
The Zieg Heil comment followed a statement that Harper alone would decide when there was an election -- I don't think NR was supporting that fact so much as bemoaning it-- and the Nazi reference from JKR was meant to a public figure (Harper) not a poster here and I thought that intent was clear in post 7. To that end I think JKR was actually agreeing with NR at least mostly and their difference was about how far this issue would go which seems like a fair disagreement rather than an attack.
Who knows maybe I got it wrong, but I thought those two were involved in a mostly agreed point only with the difference that NR was more pessimistic about whether people would wake up and pay attention.And perhaps some disagreement about how serious things became-- I'd be surprised if either thought the other was being Nazi-like.
I don't mean to challenge your intention here so much as point out that there is a fair alternate interpretation for those comments at least as I took them. Perhaps ask NR if he took it that way and JKR if he meant it that way?
Fri, 2011-02-18 09:50
#21
Regardless, I don't think that phrase should be used on Babble even when spelled incorrectly.
Fri, 2011-02-18 10:09
#22
Hi Rebecca, I totally support responding to attacks-- I just wanted to suggest that in this case I did not read it that way at all. I thought JKR's comment was about the situation not the poster.
Upon re-reading, you're right Sean. My apologies to JKR.
However, comparing the Harper gov't, or Harper, to the nazis does a disservice to those who suffered horribly under the nazis. Please use more thought when making such comparisons, even if they're intended to be tongue-in-cheek.
Thanks
Fri, 2011-02-18 12:08
#23
The point I was trying to make was that authoritarianism is an evil that must not be tolerated.
I reacted to a post where someone mentioned that Harper was successful at weilding power. One of the main messages sold to us by the Conservatives is that people should support Harper, eventhough everyone knows he acts unethically, because he has "the trains running on time". We keep hearing that eventhough Harper is undemocratic, he is the best choice for PM because he is the best manager. Even Conservatives politicians, bureaucrats, and other insiders freely admit he has them frightened of speaking out. Conservatives admit his own Cabinet has been intimidated into silence. This sounds to me almost like many of us are now more likely to accept the ethos of "might is right."
In my previous posts my main criticism wasn't against the Conservatives. I don't think they are in any way shape or form like the NAZI's. My critisism is with the acceptance of authoritarianism.
NAZI Germany is the best lesson we have of how a modern pluralistic liberal democratic society slides toward authoritarianism. If we start condoning smaller acts of authoritarianism now, it will make it more difficult in the future to stop larger and larger acts of authoritarianism.
After seeing so many people ignore and even condone Oda's and Harper's actions, I'm beginning to wonder how democratic and liberty loving Canadians really are. If people don't stand up for liberty and democracy now, all that separates us from a slide toward facsism may be a major economic downturn or another major act of terrorism like 911. People should never forget how easy it was for GW Bush to start an illegal war in Iraq in the wake of 911. And how easy it was to pass the Patriot Act.
Fri, 2011-02-18 12:13
#24
Regardless, I don't think that phrase should be used on Babble even when spelled incorrectly.
I think that phrase is apt, even if spelled incorrectly, in response to:
Harper, and Harper alone will decide whether or not we go to the polls.
The fact is that without a majority, Harper can't dictate whether or not we go to the polls.
Fri, 2011-02-18 12:30
#25
comparing the Harper gov't, or Harper, to the nazis does a disservice to those who suffered horribly under the nazis.
I concur.
Fri, 2011-02-18 13:05
#26
Harper will decide whether or not we have an election. He can go to GG and ask for one, or if it looks like the opposition parties are going to defeat his government, and he doesn't an election, he is quite capable of offering a concession to just one of the opposition parties, and that's all it will take for him to stay in power. Why do you think he has remained in power for more than 5 years? It has worked for him every time. And seriously, with their dismal polling numbers, do you really think the Liberals want an election now? And who is going to believe what the Liberals say anyway?
The fact is that without a majority, Harper can't dictate whether or not we go to the polls.
Fri, 2011-02-18 13:10
#27
Northern Shoveler
The point I was trying to make was that authoritarianism is an evil that must not be tolerated.
I reacted to a post where someone mentioned that Harper was successful at weilding power. One of the main messages sold to us by the Conservatives is that people should support Harper, eventhough everyone knows he acts unethically, because he has "the trains running on time".
...
NAZI Germany is the best lesson we have of how a modern pluralistic liberal democratic society slides toward authoritarianism. If we start condoning smaller acts of authoritarianism now, it will make it more difficult in the future to stop larger and larger acts of authoritarianism.
I agree with your sentiment and think your "keep the trains running on time" is the best part. Harper is more like an El Duce figure with delusions of grandeur while accepting his rightful place in the axis. German analogies should at least be saved for the head of the alliance not the head waiter.
Fri, 2011-02-18 13:51
#28
Very well said.
As it did over the census, the Liberal opposition has turned to the social media to put pressure on the Conservatives. Given the alleged seriousness of the offence, one would think the party would turn its mind to putting its money where its mouth is in Parliament rather than on Facebook and Twitter.If Harper was the leader of the official opposition, he would already be taking steps to withdraw the confidence of the House from the government.
...
The testimony that triggered the 2005 opposition siege of Martin's minority government did not involve the Liberal leader or his ministers directly. It surfaced as the result of an inquiry set in motion by the prime minister himself and only a few months before its definitive conclusions were scheduled to be delivered to the public.Still Harper made a strong case that the issue of the character of the government was one of such importance that it deserved to be put to voters at the earliest opportunity.
What was true then is as true now. The Prime Minister - by virtue of his role and his authority - defines the culture of his government and Canadians deserve to decide whether a culture of ministerial deceit is what they expect from a party that came to power promising to restore the integrity of an abused system.
- And unfortunately, the fact that the Libs are treating Oda's forgery as just another momentary scandal rather than linking it in any meaningful way to the broader question of whether or not the Cons can be left in office - including by publicly stating a willingness to work with other parties to achieve change - only figures to give force to criticisms like John Ibbitson's that the issue is one of "nit-picking" rather than the fitness for office of the Harper Cons.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2011/02/friday-afternoon-lin...
Fri, 2011-02-18 15:00
#29
bagkitty
Perhaps it is the Roy Orbison images being used above that got me thinking about it, but what is it with the Conservative benches and big 'ole sunglasses? It is more than a little off-putting, and it is not just Ms. Oda (I believe Rona Ambrose has a tendency to hide herself behind saucer sized darkened lenses too).
parl.gc.ca informs me that:
While there is no Standing Order setting down a dress code for Members participating in debate, Speakers have ruled that to be recognized to speak, tradition and practice require all Members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire. The contemporary practice and unwritten rule require, therefore, that male Members wear a jacket and tie as standard dress.
--------------------
Although to be fair (damn I hate being fair) there is the possibility that she has been advised to wear sunglasses for medical reasons... I remember a reference to a Montreal area MP being told to wear them after eye surgery last year to protect herself against the glaring lights that are required for the television cameras to work properly.
Still, the "optics" are unfortunate... brings to mind used cars salesmen and the like.
Fri, 2011-02-18 15:00
#30
Opposition MPs attempted to link the Prime Minister's Office to controversy over an altered foreign aid document, as they wrapped up a week of attacks against the government.
MPs took up most of question period Friday to focus on the decision to alter a document signed by International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda that denied funding for Canadian foreign aid agency Kairos.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/02/18/pol-oda-pmo.html#ixzz1ELIXSmhl
Fri, 2011-02-18 15:15
#31
Boom Boom
Oda had eye surgery recently - either this week or last.
Fri, 2011-02-18 15:18
#32
What I am still looking for is a specific and detailed answer as to why Kairos was denied funding. Sure the government has the power and right to do such a thing- but Kairos has reportedly been waiting since March for an answer as to what the denial was based on (or at least the excuse). I think we all know the answer, but I would like to see the opposition not forget about Kairos and the very vulnerable people they help around the world.
Fri, 2011-02-18 15:36
#33
bagkitty
Thanks Boom Boom.
Fri, 2011-02-18 15:38
#34
The point I was trying to make was that authoritarianism is an evil that must not be tolerated......
...NAZI Germany is the best lesson we have of how a modern pluralistic liberal democratic society slides toward authoritarianism.
With all due respect, pre-Hitler Germany was not a modern pluralistic liberal democratic society. It was the result of punitive reparations forced upon it by the League of Nations's Treaty of Versailles.
Fri, 2011-02-18 16:25
#35
With all due respect that's not entirely right either. There was a German revolution on November 9, 1918 that saw the Kaiser flee Germany. On the 11th Matthias Erzberger, (a leading figure from the Catholic-focused Centre Party's left wing) representing Germany signed the armistice agreement near Compiegne ending the war. Erzberger was a leading critic of the war in its latter stages. For his actions he was assassinated in 1921 by the Organization Consul by the way. He is a pretty interesting guy and fought hard against capitalist control in Germany as Finance Minister and if you are interested in the era he is worth reading about. In fact I know you can write an entire 4th year history paper about him 
At least you could way back in the day.
So Germany was a fledgling, struggling progressive democracy, however, you are also right to cite the damage done to the Weimer Republic by the treaty of Versailles in October 1919. So to sum up in your thread drift you are both right and you are both wrong. So how about we leave it at that.
Fri, 2011-02-18 16:33
#36
Well, I wasn't referring to pre-WWI, in which case I would've cited the revolution of 1848. However, I was commenting on the state of Germany prior to Adolf Hitler's becoming Chancellor, and the ensuing supremacy of the Nazi state.
Fri, 2011-02-18 16:55
#37
Well then, again with the greatest respect you are still wrong. The Weimar Republic was most definetly a pluralistic democracy, or tried to be, given it was under the shadow of the ToV and hyper-inflation, and armed ulta right death squads pre-dating the NSP by several years and armed ultra left death squads too. Some of the reforms of capital by Erzberger were quite a bit ahead of their time and Germany was on the road to becoming a more open and less militaristic society- which is partly what propelled the anit-modernity NSP and their allies. So agian, both are right, both are wrong and besides this is major thread drift I am contributing too. (But I don't often get to bring up all this stuff I spent a year of my life immersed in
). Sorry I'll shut up now.
Fri, 2011-02-18 17:28
#38
I think we should start doing a better job teaching ethics in our society. This isn't about votes, this is about integrity.If we lived in an ethical society, there would be no questions concerning these kinds of acts of duplicity.
It's very difficult to talk about ethics when people at the top behave in flagrantly unethical ways and get away with it, while people at the bottom are punished for them. For example, in Winnipeg, Sam Katz received a report just prior to the election that Winnipeg didn't have enough 911 operators, so he turned that into a campaign promise. How unethical is that? Most of us are expected to fix things that are not up to standard under penalties that can include termination. Or look at the Bryant case in Toronto, RCMP Corporal Monte Robinsion, RCMP Officer Geoff Mantler in Kelowna and several other cases of police misconduct, public calls for assassination of Julian Assange, and other fraudulent behaviour, including at the high level banks in the US.
That's why I generally roll my eyes when politicians talk about "cracking down on crime." They need to set a better example.
Fri, 2011-02-18 17:59
#39
Hebert makes a great observation:
If Harper was the leader of the official opposition, he would already be taking steps to withdraw the confidence of the House from the government.
True. Bottom line is that the Opposition parties have to be willing to have the courage to pull the plug on Harper and go to an election regardless of wether the polls are good. If they don't challenge Harper over this, he will cotinue to do whatever he wants for another year and there will be no point in the Opposition parties complaining about it.
Fri, 2011-02-18 20:56
#40
The fact is that without a majority, Harper can't dictate whether or not we go to the polls.
... if it looks like the opposition parties are going to defeat his government, and he doesn't an election, he is quite capable of offering a concession to just one of the opposition parties,
If Harper needs other parties to agree to his concessions, he, by definition, does not have the power to dictate whether or not we go to the polls.
Fri, 2011-02-18 23:41
#41
I can see it all now:
JKR Bulletin, JKR bulletin, Now here this
Michael Ignatieff will decide the date of our next election.
PS How's Bev doing these days? I'm just shocked, I tell you shocked, to hear she is still in Cabinet. 
Sat, 2011-02-19 01:06
#42
I can see it all now:
JKR Bulletin, JKR bulletin, Now here this
Michael Ignatieff will decide the date of our next election.
Once again you're wrong about who can and who can't dictate the date of our next election. Ignatieff is in no position to unilaterally decide the date of our next election. However, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe could come together and decide the date of our next election. As far as we know maybe they already have.
PS How's Bev doing these days? I'm just shocked, I tell you shocked, to hear she is still in Cabinet.
I'm just shocked, I tell you shocked, that the National Post has editorials saying Oda should be removed from cabinet while a self-professed NDP supporter is happy she's still in cabinet. I'm just gobsmacked, I tell you gobsmacked, that someone's trying to start up an "NDP'ers for Harper" caucus within the NDP. 
Sat, 2011-02-19 01:25
#43
Who knew!
Ball in Harper's court: Duncan
http://www.inews880.com/Channels/Reg/LocalNews/story.aspx?ID=1367017
Sat, 2011-02-19 01:33
#44
Newflash!
If Harper capitulates to the NDP's demands, the NDP will vote for the budget.
Sat, 2011-02-19 02:01
#45
I wouldn't use the word capitulate in relation to Harper, it might scare him off.
Sat, 2011-02-19 02:08
#46
Using the word capitualate around Harper could make his head explode.
Using it around Ignatieff might initiate a shrug.
Sat, 2011-02-19 02:48
#47
Don't give in to these right-wing fanatics, eh Steevie. Hang in there with Bev.
Gotcha photos sign of Oda's future
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2011/02/18/17329316.html
Sat, 2011-02-19 03:19
#48
Oda should be fired- Vancouver Sun / Ottawa Citizen
Oda's removal is necessary, but it alone will not create the kind of coherent international aid funding policies that Canadians demand, and groups like KAIROS which are trying to improve lives around the world, deserve.
KAIROS Furor: Did PM bigfoot Oda? - Toronto Star
This furor raises a number of questions. Did Oda initially approve the funding, as her signature on the document suggests? That’s what some suspect. “None of this washes,” Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said this week. “The most plausible explanation . . . is that Bev Oda signed the approval and the “NOT” was inserted subsequently.”
Did Harper or his office overrule her? Has Oda been a loyal trooper, carrying the can for her boss? Is that why Harper is defending the indefensible?
And on what grounds did the government overrule CIDA in the first place? That’s still not clear.
These are serious questions that go to the heart of government accountability and public trust. So far Harper has brushed them off. Canadians deserve answers.
Sun, 2011-02-20 06:14
#49
Lakoff describes conservative morality to a t.
What Conservatives Really Want - George Lakoff - Huffington Post
The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged.
...
Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used again conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors.
This explains how we've reached the point where the act of lying itself is now being explained away on Parliament Hill.
This article should be required reading for anyone interested in understandings the undepinning of Canada's Conservative Party.
Sun, 2011-02-20 08:21
#50
Lying has been owned by the Liberals since the beginning of time. All I'm seeing here is that the Conservatives are better liars and the Liberals are jealous.
Sun, 2011-02-20 08:23
#51
Well it's a wrap!
Aide stamped Bev Oda signature on funding memo
Funding document only altered to signal direct decision from minister, Tories say
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Aide+stamped+signature/4316862/story...