Peace, order and good government, eh?

A question for John Ibbitson

2010-09-03T12:21:00Z

Ibbitson has the Globe and Mail's version of today's big political news: the announced departure of the PM's Chief of Staff Guy Giorno by the end of this year. After dealing with that specific issue, the story provides a bit of a forecast on what we can expect in federal politics in the coming months, including this:

...the Conservative Leader is already test-driving what will doubtless become a relentless message: that Canada is really a two-party state, with the Conservatives on one side and a "coalition," as he calls it, of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois on the other.

Never mind that the other parties don't think of themselves as a coalition. It is Mr. Harper's political good fortune that a coalition is governing Britain and will eventually be cobbled together in Australia. And a coalition is just what Mr. Ignatieff's predecessor, Stéphane Dion, attempted. So the idea is in the air.

If countries with which many Canadians are familiar and can more easily identify are now (or are soon to be) governed by coalitions and haven't descended into bloody chaos and anarchy, doesn't that make the idea of a coalition seem more familiar and benign as opposed to more exotic and dangerous? How is that good for Harper's intention to base his whole campaign on the idea of running against a coalition?

Or is this a case of: it's always good news for Conservatives?

Coming soon to a House of Commons near you

2010-09-02T15:55:00Z

Harper hints at extraordinary terror measures

Lapsed anti-terror provisions -- extraordinary measures the Conservative government has been trying to revive -- might have been useful in the current effort to round up suspects in an alleged bomb plot, the prime minister hinted Wednesday.

...

Asked whether the government planned to bring back exceptional powers to arrest terror suspects, Harper pointed to the bill, which is still at first-reading stage.

"There is some legislation in this regard that we would like to see passed, but obviously as we watch these particular incidents we'll carefully examine our laws to make sure they're adequate to deal with the circumstances that do arise from time to time," Harper said in Mirabel, Que.

Harper was referring to Bill C-17, aka The Combating Terrorism Act. It was introduced in April of this year and is intended to revive controversial measures — preventative arrests and investigative hearings — that were first implemented after 9/11 but with sunset clauses. Those measures were allowed to lapse when an extension of them failed to win majority support in the Commons in 2007.

If you want more background on the history of these measures and the politics surrounding the 2007 review, I'd refer you to this article by Reg Whitaker published at Prism shortly after C-17 was introduced. As he describes it, the Conservatives struck a more conciliatory tone last April as compared to the contentious debate of a few years ago. But given the opportunity presented by these recent arrests, I have to wonder if that will continue.

The Conservatives have lately taken to trying to frighten us at every turn. The Russians are invading our airspace, we're increasingly victims of unreported crime, there are boatloads of terrorists and human traffickers coming to our shores and — the scariest of all — there's a coalition of socialists and separatists waiting for the opportunity to take over the country and pollute our precious bodily fluids. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to anticipate another round of "soft on terrorism" accusations being hurled at anyone who opposes the government's agenda. Things could get nasty. It wouldn't be the first time.

Meanwhile, there are some decidedly odd things going on regarding the reporting on the newest case of alleged, attempted, "homegrown" terrorism (would it be "homegrown" if the alleged perps were white and Christian?). You can go see Alison to read about the case of the disappearing news reports.

I'll second that, too

2010-09-02T12:49:00Z

Impolitical applauds a column by Lawrence Martin that encourages Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to create a Bring Back Democracy platform. Martin suggests a number of specific points designed to reduce the concentration of power in the PMO and make government more open and accountable.

I think Martin overlooks an important one though. We have an electoral system that allows a party with the support of roughly 40% of the electorate to govern as if it has an absolute majority. Surely fixing that should be at the top of the list of Things To Do Today for anyone who wants to make this country more democratic.

And I'm going to disagree with Impolitical on one point.

Bring. It. On. At the appropriate time, of course.

This is the appropriate time. Stephen Harper has clearly indicated his intention to run his next election campaign based on misconceptions about our system of government. What better way to combat that than to encourage a conversation that, by its very nature, will help to educate people about how the system actually works? But can we do justice to the subject in the thirty-odd days of a federal election campaign?

It's conventional wisdom among pundits and politicians that Canadians have no appetite for discussions about governance and constitutional issues. I would have thought that all the attention paid to that last prorogation of parliament would have disabused a lot of them of that notion.

I'll second that

2010-09-02T12:01:00Z

Don't hide information, governments advised

Canada's governments, in the interest of gaining public trust and building a "robust democracy," should open their files and provide much more information to Canadians.

This is the message that emerged Wednesday in a joint resolution released by information and privacy commissioners representing the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

That would represent a complete reversal in policy for our current federal government just as it would have for previous Liberal governments. The trend in Canada for years has been towards greater government secrecy and the politicization of the Access to Information system. I guess it can't hurt to keep encouraging governments to do better and I applaud these folks for trying. But there's a part of this issue they overlook.

In particular, the commissioners are calling on politicians and bureaucrats to embrace the principle of "open government" -- a shift they say is occurring in other nations such as the United States, where President Barack Obama has made it easier for Americans to get access to information, usually online. Meanwhile, government leaders in Britain and Australia have also recently endorsed the idea.

In some respects, it's true that Obama has improved access to information. He has also done far more than his predecessor ever did to cast a chill on whistleblowers by attempting to prosecute those — including journalists — who have tried to shine some light on government abuses. If this discussion is about being able to hold governments accountable then protection for whistleblowers has to be a part of it. If the U.S., Britain and Australia are so good at it, why is WikiLeaks striking up relationships with Iceland and Sweden?

This is a conversation we should be having. But there are so many of those these days.

Canada's back!

2010-09-01T12:26:00Z

Budget cuts hurting embassies: DFAIT reports

Recent budget cuts at Canadian embassies and high commissions are having dramatic ramifications on the country's representation abroad, according to Foreign Affairs reports.

In particular, the documents reveal that last summer's decision to slash travel and hospitality budgets has made it difficult to make key contacts and build trade relations, and has kept missions from covering more than one country effectively.

This is a story that has been unfolding for at least three and a half years — a Conservative government that has publicly boasted about restoring Canada's place in the world has quietly closed consulates, sold off property, slashed budgets and hollowed out the Department of Foreign Affairs. Harper's foreign policy appears to be fairly simple — do what the Americans and Israelis tell us to do and pretend it was our idea. I guess that doesn't require a very big budget. Except for the weapons systems, of course.

Some citizens fight back

2010-09-01T11:41:00Z

Court clears way for Abdelrazik torture lawsuit

The [Federal Court of Canada] has dismissed the federal government's attempt to strike out much of the lawsuit filed by Abousfian Abdelrazik.

...

Abelrazik (sic) alleges negligence on the part of Canadian Security Intelligence Service officials that resulted in his detention and caused him severe physical and mental injuries.

I would add negligence on the part of the federal government, and specifically Lawrence Cannon, who refused to lift a finger to aid Abdelrazik until the courts forced the issue. Needless to say I'll be watching this one.

Rounded at the free end

2010-09-01T02:59:00Z

Liberals rally gun registry support at expense of divided New Democrats

BADDECK, N.S. - Forget all that talk about federal Liberals merging or forming a coalition with the NDP.

The Liberals now aim to co-opt NDP support and they're using debate over the controversial long-gun registry to do it.

They announced Tuesday they'll open a national campaign to save the registry. In the process, they hope to mould a defining issue that will establish the Liberals as the only real alternative to Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government.

Emphasis added. There was an interesting piece in The Hill Times yesterday about the increasing tendency toward "hung parliaments" in countries with a parliamentary system like ours. The story pointed out that the politicians in those other countries have been quicker to adapt to the electorate's unwillingness to grant any single party a mandate to govern. They've recognized that the nature of the game may have changed and so they're exploring both coalition governments and the possibilities of electoral reform.

But the people at the helm of the Liberal Party of Canada won't let a little thing like a changing political reality get in their way. They saw a minor bump in the polls for a few days and they're ready to go all in on trying to make Iggy the next Emperor of Canada. There may be some minor revisions to the playbook but they think they can continue essentially the same game they've been playing for most of the last four and a half years and get a different outcome. I don't think it's going to play out that way.

H/t to Antonia on Twitter.

Some citizens are more worthy than others

2010-09-01T01:32:00Z

Government set to appeal Abdullah Khadr extradition

A Canadian citizen's four-year fight to stave off extradition to the United States, where he is wanted on terrorism-related charges, is poised to become even longer.

The federal government has decided to appeal a court ruling that stayed extradition proceedings against Abdullah Khadr on the grounds U.S. authorities had been complicit in his jailing and abuse in Pakistan.

...

In granting the rare stay on Aug. 4, Ontario Superior Court Justice Christopher Speyer found the U.S. had violated basic principles of justice.

Didn't Stephen Harper once promise to stand up for Canada? Because here he's standing up for another country's right to illegally detain and abuse a Canadian citizen and still have its way with him. Let me repeat that: our courts have ruled that the United States was complicit in the illegal detention and abuse of a Canadian citizen and that citizen's own government is appealing on behalf of the abuser and not in protection of its own citizen.

But this government has long made it clear that it reserves the right to decide which of us are worthy of the protection a government should provide to all of its citizens and which of us are not. See Abdelrazik, Abousfian. And if it can happen to Abdelrazik or Khadr, it can happen to you the moment someone in power decides that he doesn't like ... the cut of your jib.

Our lawyer's not talking

2010-08-31T22:57:00Z

MacKay denies Afghan committee request

Letters obtained by CBC news show that Defence Minister Peter MacKay was unwilling to waive the government's right to solicitor-client privilege when it comes to the testimony of the military's one-time senior legal adviser, despite a request for it to do so from the House of Commons special committee on Afghanistan.

The tense in the headline makes it sound as though McKay's denial is a recent development but what's recent is the CBC's discovery of it. It was last November when a former judge advocate general of the Canadian Forces, Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Ken Watkin, testified before the Commons committee. At the time he refused to answer certain questions claiming that they involved privileged communications with his client, the government of Canada. The CBC is now confirming that MacKay, on behalf of the government, refused a request from the committee to waive privilege. It's always good to know that our government is doing its best to thwart our government's ability to hold our government accountable. Or something.

It doesn't surprise me and it probably doesn't surprise you either. I just note it for the record as further evidence that the Harper government will block disclosure on this file at every turn, using every means at its disposal. It almost makes you wonder what they're hiding, doesn't it? Have I said that before?

H/t to JB on Twitter.

Today in Too Stupid To Govern

2010-08-30T13:30:00Z

John Baird.

The link is to a Globe and Mail report on the determination of the opposition parties to gain access to documents that newly appointed government house leader John Baird has declared off-limits. The article reviews Baird's reasoning, including this:

...a Parliamentary committee's ability to summon people and documents has never been used to give the majority of MPs, in this case the opposition, access to internal communications of the government minority.

I'd be surprised to find that no minority government has ever faced a demand from an opposition majority to summon documents. In fact, given recent events concerning documents relating to Afghan detainees, I'd say Baird is on shaky ground even if he could somehow make the case that an absence of precedent is, itself, a precedent. But strip all the distractions away from his statement and we're left with the assertion that a minority government is entitled to some kind of special protection precisely because it governs with less than a majority of seats in the Commons and much less than majority support from the electorate. The Conservatives want extra points for being less popular. It's just inane.

I've said before that I don't think folks like Clement, Baird, et. al. are actually complete morons. But they seem quite content to pretend to be moronic on the national stage in order to defend policies that are really indefensible, so who am I to argue?

Today in WTF? moments

2010-08-29T19:32:00Z

The story is actually a few days old but I just stumbled across it today. And it's the U.S. and not Canada but their law enforcement trends seem to show up here eventually, don't they? It certainly made me go "WTF!?".

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre - and scary - rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants - with no need for a search warrant.

The lack of "reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway" involved a suspect whose vehicle was parked in a driveway a few feet from his trailer home. The court ruled that his expectations were limited because the driveway was open to access by "delivery people and neighbourhood children." One of the dissenting judges, a Reagan appointee, took particular issue with this aspect of the ruling.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Pretty much. The article also notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled that extended GPS tracking was an invasion of privacy and required a warrant. I imagine the SCOTUS will have to get involved now to resolve this. That would be the Roberts court so I see no reason to be particularly optimistic now that there's a ruling they can endorse.

I remain stunned that the Ninth Circuit — and this is upholding a previous ruling of theirs that had been appealed so they've said this twice now — has blessed this kind of warrantless invasion of privacy. I didn't think it was that bad yet.

About that judicial process

2010-08-28T17:59:00Z

In the matter of Omar Khadr, the government of Stephen Harper has always maintained that there was a judicial process in place to determine Khadr's guilt or innocence and that the proper thing for Canada to do was to allow that process to unfold. It now appears that even the Americans don't want that process to unfold.

After working for a year to redeem the international reputation of military commissions, Obama administration officials are alarmed by the first case to go to trial under revamped rules: the prosecution of a former child soldier whom an American interrogator implicitly threatened with gang rape.

...

Senior officials at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon have agreed privately that it would be better to reach a plea bargain in the Khadr case so that a less problematic one would be the inaugural trial, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials. But the administration has not pushed to do so because officials fear, for legal and political reasons, that it would be seen as improper interference.

Khadr was already offered one deal: to be publicly sentenced to thirty years and actually serve five. He turned it down and I guess that's really put the Obama administration on the spot.

After campaign promises about closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and bringing fairness to whatever process would be used to deal with the remaining detainees, Obama has spent the last year and a half trying to appear bipartisan by compromising with his critics on the right to a point where he sometimes looks more like Dubya than Dubya did. Now he's in a bind because a 23 year old kid who's been shot, tortured and incarcerated for a third of his life before finally facing a judge stood up in court and said that he won't cooperate with a process that's obviously corrupt. I guess you could say he called their bluff.

That leaves the administration to forge ahead with a tribunal process that's widely perceived as a kangaroo court and with a defendant that most of the world regards as a child soldier who shouldn't be tried by any kind of judicial process, never mind one with no credibility. It sounds as though "senior officials at the White House" have finally realized how badly they're embarrassing themselves and just want to make this go away but don't know how.

I wonder if Stephen Harper will be receiving a phone call. Knowing Harper, he'll dig his heels in.

H/t to Toedancer at Bread and Roses.

Apparently gaming the system works

2010-08-28T14:04:00Z

I keep a fairly close watch out for media reports on the Afghan detainee issue. It's possible that I may have missed something in recent weeks that actually advanced the story but I don't think so. It was reported on July 14th that the panel of judges who would advise MPs on the national security implications of the documents under review had been named. And since then?

On July 28th, Thomas Walkon wrote a column on a key revelation in the "War Logs" documents that WikiLeaks had just finished releasing: that up until 2009, Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security had been entirely funded by the CIA. It had already been reported that the agreement to turn prisoners over to the NDS had been created in the first place to avoid the perception that the Canadian Forces were turning prisoners over to the Americans. If the NDS was working for the CIA, well, so much for that.

On August 14th, there was a photo of Laurie Hawn standing beside a pile of binders — a nice little photo op that seemed designed to assure us that our representatives were working hard without actually telling us anything useful.

And today, Thomas Walkom uses his column to remind us that there's a serious and unresolved issue here that goes beyond the dispute over access to documents. He reviews what we know in broad strokes and concludes:

... there is considerable evidence that the abuse-riddled detention system set up by Canada was not a mistake but deliberate.

The lengths the Conservatives have gone to in trying to keep us all in the dark on this story only fuels the suspicion that they're trying to cover up serious war crimes. Since opposition MPs united to pass a motion demanding access to secret documents, the government's strategy has been to delay at every turn, seemingly in the hopes that the story would eventually drop off the radar. It appears to be working. Needless to say, I appreciate Walkom's efforts to keep that from happening.

Friday night

2010-08-27T23:53:00Z

Good evening. We're starting with a slow blues instrumental by Rick Estrin called Marion's Mood.

It must be a couple of months since I posted something by Moreland & Arbuckle so I'm going to indulge myself. I like these guys. They like it raw. This is Pittsburgh in the Morning, Philadelphia at Night.

I hope you're not tired of blues harp because I've got a bunch more. I'm introducing Big Mama Thornton and she'll introduce the rest. This is called Down Home Shakedown. Have a good weekend.

If what I've told you to do isn't working

2010-08-27T17:29:00Z

Then you need to do more of it.

At various times I've referred to Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty as both an incompetent hack and an ideologue. Here's an illustrative example. Ireland's program of cutbacks has had the opposite effect to the one desired: instead of helping to improve their economy the Irish find themselves mired deeper in debt and have now had their credit rating reduced. But Flaherty is so tied to the notion that austerity is the best course of action in all circumstances that he's actually prepared to meddle in the debate concerning the economy of a country on the other side of the Atlantic in a circumstance where, clearly, the course of action Flaherty is praising isn't working.

But the economy isn't healthy so obviously someone must be punished, even if the people being punished aren't responsible for the problem. And even if the punishment will make things worse instead of better.