Thursday, February 22, 2007

Beyond the Pale

Apparently there is nothing Stephen Harper will not say in order to try to embarrass and smear his political opponents. I used to think the "soft on child porn" press release from 2004 was an aberration, the work of some too-keen lackey that somehow got through. I'm not so sure any more, after the disgust display of partisan hackery and drive by smearing we saw in Question Period today.

Apparently it is okay for our Prime Minister to imply that, via guilt by association, that a member of another party is somehow implicated in the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history. That somehow, the Liberal Party is not supporting an extension to the anti-terror legislation because they wish to cover up for one of their members.

Navdeep Singh Bains, the Member for Mississauga-Brampton South, was 9 when Air India occurred. His father-in-law is a witness, not a suspect. Yet he and his family were singled out for a partisan attack. And despite a personal appeal from Bains, Harper has declined to apologize for dragging his family through the mud.

Point to consider, Mr. Harper - the RCMP has had 6 years to use the provisions of the anti-terrorism act to investigate the Air India attack. In that time we have had a verdict in a trial and a review by Bob Rae. The RCMP has been investigating this for over 20 years. To think that now the investigation is under threat because of the Liberals won't extend the anti-terror legislation is a lie. This too is cheap, fabricated political opportunism by the same government that is trying to keep evidence secret, contrary to what Justice John Major is ordering. If memory serves, this is how the Air India bombers got away with it in the first place.

Point to consider, Mr. Harper - the only time Canada has faced a serious terrorist threat since 9-11 (indeed since Air India) has been the "Toronto 17". They were caught with good old fashioned police work, warrants and a sting operation. They were reported by teenage Canadian Muslims. The new anti-terror measures are not needed, unused, and contrary to liberty.

It is quite clear that Stephen Harper will spread any myth, any lie, any outrageous conspiracy theory as long as he thinks it will get him his precious majority. God help us all then.

I challenge Stephen Harper to try and make that allegation outside the floor of the House of Commons. If he is so sure it is right, say it outside the House and see what the family of Mr. Bains and the Liberal Party do then.

Stephen Harper has demonstrated he has no honour, no morals, no ethics and no scruples. He does not deserve to be president of a student's council, let alone Prime Minister of Canada. Frankly, none of them do, but Harper most especially.

I tell you, I am more convinced than ever my recent change in outlook is the right one. After looking at that, how can anyone seriously think any of those power thirsty idiots has anybodies interests in mind by their own?


Harper is continuing to be a feckless bastard and continues to hide behind the Air India families. Predictable. Sad, disgusting and predictable.

Labels: , , ,


At 9:24 PM, Blogger JG said...

Hear, hear!

But I must protest your choice of labels. Pigs are intelligent creatures who deserve better than to be likened to Harper and his coterie of syncophantic lackeys. As you say, let Harper repeat his innuendo outside the House if he thinks it valid.

Fortunately, I don't think Canadians are impressed by the Return of Mr Angry.

At 1:21 AM, Blogger DazzlinDino said...

Mike, I actually winced when I heard it on the radio today. EVEN IF there is any truth to it, which is doubtful, The Hill during QP is HARDLY the place to use it. EVEN was a bad move.....

At 8:06 AM, Blogger Mike said...

Well Dazz, as I allude in my challenge, the House was probably the ONLY place he could use it, because any place else and he'd be sued for slander.

That is as low as I think one can go.

At 8:51 AM, Blogger Andrew said...

Meh - this is the sort of idiocy that our MPs have been trained to believe is acceptable. Who trained 'em? Well, the media certainly - they love a good sound bite - but also all of us Canadians who let them get away with this sort of stupidity time and time again.

Yeah, what Harper said was bad.... but I was just as offended & insulted by the mean-spirited lies, fabrications, and smears the Liberals shot at Harper week after week when Martin was in charge. (And still continue with...)

They all suck - and I don't know why we act all surprised - afterall, we created them.

At 9:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I challenge Stephen Harper to try and make that allegation outside the floor of the House of Commons. If he is so sure it is right, say it outside the House and see what the family of Mr. Bains and the Liberal Party do then."

Apparently you do not know the law. The PM or anyone for that matter cannot be sued by reading a newspaper article out loud in the public! The LPC's remedy is to go after the newspaper - and apparently they aren't - as always, LPC and pure politics and fake outrage.

At 10:29 PM, Blogger Mike said...

"Apparently you do not know the law."

I know the law very well. I also can see and hear. Harper was doing more than just reading from the newspaper when he stated " an example of how the Liberals make decisions..." That was not in the article. And the implication that the Liberal Party was taking its stance on the ATA in order to cover up for a backbench MP, was very obvious. I can nearly guarantee that that a judge or a jury in a slander case would certainly take into account more than simply the words, but a what a "reasonable person" would understand from the remarks.

If the PM is so confident by what he was going to say in the House that day, why did he simply not repeat it at a press conference afterward, to clarify what he had been shouted down on? Why hasn't he repeated it at all outside the house since?

Because he would have his ass sued off, by both the Bains family and the LPC, and he knows it.

Also, can I ask, are you illiterate or stupid? If you think for a minute I support the Liberals, you clearly haven't read anything I have written in the last 2 years...most certainly not in the last week.

At 6:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, I restate that you don't know the law on libel. There is no way that Harper could be sued by reading the a newspaper article outside of the Commons. Look it up. Regardless, I don't think it is an important part of your initial argument.

It's too bad the LPC booed him down before he completed his message - then we'd really know what he was attempting to say.

Every PM in Canada has been power thirsty - some are just better at hiding it than others.

At 7:37 PM, Blogger Mike said...

Well anon, I restate that I do. Firstly, he would be guilty of slander not libel.

Slander is defined as "harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech", and is defamation - "a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation". Quite well known in common law and torts, and uses the "reasonable man" standard.

That pretty much describes what Harper did, especially when the other things he said, and the context in which it was said. It is much more than "just reading an newspaper in public" as was Harpers statement - he was implying that the Liberals were not voting for the ATA extension because they were covering up for an MP and his family, a claim that is patently false. Harper of course, has parliamentary privilege and thus cannot be sued for making that statement inside the house, and he knows it. But he could be sued for repeating his statement in total (reading from the paper, "this is how the Liberal party makes decisions" and the context) out side the house, and he knows it.

Now, if I'm wrong, the Harper should simply repeat his statement int total, including the part from the paper, the other pats of the statement NOT part of the story, and see what happens. That he hasn't speaks volumes.

i really don't care about the LPC or any other party anymore. I'm an anarchist, and I think they all ought to go. But I know a slanderous smear when I see one and I'll happily call anyone on it.


Post a Comment

<< Home