Shame on Harper

It's not every day the PM gets shouted down by opposition backbenchers. Then again, it's not every day he deserves it. For anyone who somehow doesn't know, that's what happened in question period earlier this week when Harper tried to read from an article in the Vancouver Sun.

The question he was asked had to do with the stacking of judicial committees with Conservative partisans and other parties sharing Harper's narrow ideological view of law-and-order. The answer had nothing to do with judicial selection, but rather was a totally unrelated smear of a Liberal MP. The suggestion was that Liberals wanted to vote down the continuance of special anti-terror legislation passed 5 years ago because the MP's father-in-law is on the list of potential witnesses the RCMP would like to investigate. After the outrage, Harper's press secretary denied that they were making that link.

Let us consider the ways in which this is obviously inappropriate:

1) The answer had nothing to do with the question asked or issue raised, which is a serious issue of importance to all Canadians. It deserves an answer.
2) The father-in-law is wanted as a witness, not a suspect.
3) The sins of the father(-in-law) should not be revisited on the son, who was only 7 years old at the time of the bombing.
4) The accusation is completely spurious as all parties except the conservatives support ending the special measures. Surely not every party has an MP with a relative on the list?
5) There is no indication that the anti-terror measures are needed or effective. They have not been used a single time in the last five years.
6) There is no indication that the witness cannot be interviewed under the normal legislation. There is no explanation as to why he was not interviewed earlier, or now, if his evidence is so important and only available under the anti-terror provisions.
7) The witness lists produced under the legislation are supposed to be secret, but the identity of this witness was conveniently leaked. This highlights one of the problems with this sort of invasive legislation and also underscores a pattern of law enforcement collusion with the governing party (NOT the government) in their efforts to discredit the opposition.

So, the comments are obviously personally insulting to the MP, unnecessarily embarrassing to his family, and clearly made to imply that the Liberals make policy decisions based on a desire to cover up and protect relatives and friends of party members, which is disgusting. Obviously our PM is not above using parlilamentary privilege as a cover for making completely baseless personal accusations. But "decisive" and "visionary" Harper had his press secretary backtrack when there was an uproar. Those denials are obvious lies:

PMSH "I am not surprised, given what I'm reading [about MP Bains and his father]... when I realize this is how the Liberals make decisions."

Soudas: "the Prime Minister was not suggesting the Liberals' decision to oppose the measures was linked to Mr. Bains's father-in-law."

Try reconciling those comments. And to Mr. Harper: Having your press secretary speak the words does not mean you are not a liar, sir. And for greater clarity, let me state that I think you are in fact a liar and an embarrassment, Mr. Harper.

Six years without progress

Not surprisingly, Condoleeza Rice returned from her recent mideast trip with no good news:

"Ms. Rice reported no progress in restarting talks, which broke down more than six years ago."

Six years? SIX YEARS?? No progress made in six years? What could possibly have happened six years ago, what unmitigated disaster could have befallen us, that we have not managed a single positive step in six years?

Oh wait, I remember now, it started with an election...

Tory Outlaws

Hot off the press: laws aren't worth respecting unless they were passed by conservatives. Seriously.

I know it's too much to ask, but I would love for someone to go to jail on this, just on principle.

Towards an Activist Bench

I can't say I'm surprised, but I'm disappointed that Harper has gerrymandered the judicial appointments committees so that the government now appoints a majority of the members. Probably worse is that he did it by creating a new voting member chosen from the police forces by the government, and taking away the vote of the member appointed by the judiciary. (Not quite taking away - they still get to vote if the other seven members are tied. Which seems mathematically unlikely.)

Forget the Canadian Bar Association and the Judicial Council - obviously the people who know best what our justice system needs are partisan hacks with no legal experience. Oh, and cops - because cops will certainly bring a valuable, unbiased, and knowledgeable perspective on our legal system.