|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Sept 18, 2006 19:56:54 GMT -5
RCMP criticized in deportation, torture of Arar
Jeff Sallot
The Globe and Mail
September 18, 2006
OTTAWA – Maher Arar is an innocent victim of inaccurate RCMP intelligence reports and of deliberate smears by Canadian officials, a commission of inquiry says in a scathing report that suggests the federal government should pay him compensation.
Mr. Arar, who was deported from the United States to Syria, where he was tortured as a terrorist suspect, has suffered "devastating" mental and economic consequences as a result of his ordeal, Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor said in a report released today in censored form.
"I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada," the report says.
The 822-page report, which has been censored because of government concerns about national security, also calls for the further independent investigation of the cases of three other Canadian Muslim men – Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muyyed Nurredin – who were imprisoned and tortured in the Middle East under similar circumstances.
The RCMP should never share intelligence reports with other countries without written conditions about how that information is used, Judge O'Connor says.
He also says information should never be provided to a foreign country if there is a risk of it being used to torture people.
The report – the result of more than two years of hearings, some of them held in secret – clears federal officials of any direct involvement in the U.S. government's decision to deport Mr. Arar to the Middle East in 2002, even though the 36-year-old computer engineer was traveling on a Canadian passport.
Judge O'Connor, however, blasts the RCMP for providing U.S. authorities with inaccurate intelligence that resulted in Mr. Arar, and his wife Monia Mazigh, being put on a border watch list as dangerous al Qaeda terrorist suspects.
U.S. officials refused to testify at the Canadian inquiry. But Judge O'Connor says it "is very likely" they relied on the faulty RCMP intelligence.
"The RCMP provided American authorities with information about Mr. Arar which was inaccurate, portrayed him in an unfair fashion and overstated his importance to the investigation," the report says, referring to a Mountie probe of possible al Qaeda terrorist activities in Ottawa after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
The RCMP asked the Americans to put Mr. Arar and Dr. Mazigh on a watch list as "Islamic extremist individuals suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda terrorist movement," the report says.
"The RCMP had no basis for this description, which had the potential to create serious consequences for Mr. Arar in light of American attitudes and practices," the report said.
The Mounties' errors included reporting he was in the Washington area on Sept. 11, 2001, when in fact he was in San Diego.
Highlights from the Arar report
Canadian Press
OTTAWA – Highlights of the report of the commission of inquiry into the case of Maher Arar:
– Inexperienced RCMP investigators wrongly provided Americans with inaccurate, unfair and overstated evidence about Mr. Arar's alleged terrorist leanings.
– American officials "very likely" relied on erroneous Mountie information in their decision to send Mr. Arar to Syria, but no evidence Canadian officials participated or acquiesced in decision.
– No evidence Mr. Arar has committed any offence or is a threat to Canadian security.
– Canadian agencies erroneously accepted information about Mr. Arar from Syrians without determining whether it was extracted through torture.
– Canadian officials leaked inaccurate details about Mr. Arar to news media to damage his reputation and protect themselves.
– Mounties kept top government officials in the dark about RCMP mistakes by providing sanitized version of Mr. Arar case.
– Twenty-three recommendations, including creating an independent watchdog to monitor how Mounties share information with other countries; calling on CSIS and RCMP never to divulge information abroad if it could result in torture; urging federal government to use report as basis for compensating Mr. Arar.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 20, 2006 16:43:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 20, 2006 16:52:22 GMT -5
Harper takes Wong to task for column
OTTAWA (CP) — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has lambasted a newspaper columnist who linked last week’s Montreal school shootings to Quebecers’ alleged prejudice against immigrants.
The prime minister called Globe and Mail columnist Jan Wong’s argument prejudiced, absurd, irresponsible and without foundation.
He has sent the Globe a letter about a lengthy piece by Wong that ran last Saturday.
Harper says all Quebecers were horrified by last week’s events, in which gunman Kimveer Gill blasted his way into Dawson College, killed one student and wounded 20 others.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest has already sent the Globe and Mail a similar letter in which he called Wong’s suggestion disgraceful.
In the Sept. 16 edition of the Globe, Wong said Montrealers wondered why their city had seen three school shootings in 17 years — 1989, 1993 and last week.
She noted that none of the shooters — Marc Lepine (whose birth name was Gamil Gharbi), Valery Fabrikant, or Gill — were old-stock francophones.
She then offered the theory that non-francophones feel marginalized in the province.
----
Her "theory" was that Québec society was about "racial purity" ...
That is what she said !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Sept 21, 2006 9:43:44 GMT -5
Geez Phil, don't start relying on "Poodle Jr." for support.  No way is my high school French gonna get me through that first piece.  Can you translate? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 21, 2006 14:00:12 GMT -5
LA LOI 101 QUI TUE
(Killer Bill 101)
Yves Boisvert
La Presse
After music, Internet, video games, lack of parental supervision, our loveless society, gothic sub-culture, here’s a new theory that comes directly from Toronto to explain the Dawson college killing spree ; It’s the fault of Bill 101.
It is only the opinion of one Toronto journalist but it so happens that madam Wong is one of the Globe & Mail stars, a place that pretend to publish the best newspaper in Canada and where the managers don’t take themselves for prune pits.
Admit that you hadn’t think of it like that. Marc Lépine, Valéry Fabrikant, Kimveer Gill. All made crazies and killers because of linguistic squabbles.
The theory of madam Wong’ s article is that it is not a fluke if the three shooting in canadian post-secondary institutions happened in Montréal (she excluded other schools from her list).
She carries on by telling that the three perpetrators of those killings have one point in commun : they are immigrants and because of that they were marginalized in a society that puts ahead the « pure laine ». Because you see, everywhere it is repugnant to talk about racial purity, but not in Québec.
For me , priest Groulx* has becomed « in » in Toronto. Here I don’t remember hearing anybody even vaguely evoking the idea of racial purity on the public place without having tomatoes thrown at him.
Whatever. It is well known : any discernable phenomenon in Québec, from rain mesurement, break-ins statistics and annual deer hunting harvesting is explicable by only one true profound reason, the causa causans of all Québec things : the vile Bill 101 !
Marc Lépine was born in the 60’s. He had an algerian father. He was francophone, he was raised in a francophone environment.
Valéry Fabrikant was born in Russia in the 40’s where he went to school. He began his engineer carreer there and already his personality troubles had surfaced. He was in his 40’s when he came to Québec.
Kimveer Gill was born in Québec in 1981. His parents are indian immigrants. He did all his schooling in the english sector.
Three cases totaly different, without any link between them. Not by their social pattern, not by their obsessions, not by nothing, except that those men used a gun to shoot innocent victims inside a school.
There is not a shadow of the appearance of possible marginalization due to Québec nationalism, even imaginary, in any of those three tragic cases.
Nowhere in the suicide note left by Marc Lépine was made any mention of language, or the fact that he had been ostracized because of his father’s origins. We know he grew up in a violent family context, that his father hated women, we know that his own delirium was fixated on women and feminism. We know that he killed 14 young woment and wounded 13 others.
Nowhere in Valery Fabrikant’s numerous legal proceedings, letters, grievances, etc. was language mentioned. A Montréal Gazette investigation showed it : he brought his problems in his own luggages. He pretended that his co-workers were stealing his ideas and it was them, precisely, he wanted to hurt. He killed 4 persons et wounded another after months of harassing and menaces from his part
Kimveer Gill, in all he wrote on his blog and in all we know about him for now, never evoked any frustations due to his status of immigrant son. Her mother even told a La Presse reporter that he loved Canada and Montréal.
So where is the fact on which is based this morbid theory? There are linguistic laws in Québec that forces immigrant children to learn French; there has been three killing sprees in Montréal done by people from outside background; so this explains that. There are crocodiles in Australia; there are champion swimmers in Australia; so it must be the crocodiles that make people swim faster. Logical, no?
I know enough Globe & Mail Journalists to know that the point of view of Jan Wong represents nothing. What troubles me, is that somebody put that piece in the newspaper, thinking that it was legitimate to put forth that nationalism had murderous effects in Québec, even without any proof, any fact to back it up. This is serious.
What’s incredible in this affair is that no analyst in the french press has made any kind of odious parallel between those crimes and the foreign origin of their perpetrators, to try to extrapolate any rubbish explanation, The xenophobia is then in the eye of the observant.
Those three cases are different. They have their own inique psychological logic which we’ll probably never fully understand.
These are three Montréal tragedies, and unless a minimaly convincing proof is found, it is a sad fluke if they happened here.
To write the contrary shows a profound ignorance, or contempt or dishonesty or all of those. We see it : Politicians are not the only ones who want to put forth their theses of the back of the deads.
* Lionel Groulx : Priest, historian, and nationalist intellectual, (1878-1967)
He was accused of anti-semitism ... The debate still rages on !
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 22, 2006 21:08:44 GMT -5
Well ... After reading the G&M editorial defending Jan Wong fabulation ...
I think I'll get my news from ROC via the Calgary Sun from now on !!
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Oct 4, 2006 17:51:23 GMT -5
it's about fucking timeNova Scotia has joined the rest of....the planet...in the modern world. Now I don't have to pay $200 for for duct tape at The Cove convenience store when I need it on a Sunday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 4, 2006 19:05:01 GMT -5
We’ve had this discussion before, Riley, and I remain opposed for all the same reasons as before. Though on this court case specifically, the regulations Sobeys and Superstore were challenging were clearly arbitrary, so the government deserved to lose its case there. They basically botched this thing all the way along.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 6, 2006 16:16:25 GMT -5
Which was probably their intent all along ...
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 6, 2006 16:19:20 GMT -5
Chassez le naturel et il revient au galop
Grits attack social conservative's appointment
Updated Tue. Oct. 3 2006 9:38 PM ET
Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Outspoken social conservative Darrel Reid is under the gun from federal Liberals who say his views on gay marriage, Muslims and Quebec social mores make him unfit to be chief of staff to a Conservative minister.
Bill Graham, the Liberal interim leader, said Tuesday the new top aide to Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has expressed "Neanderthal" opinions and should be removed from his post.
Reid, a former Tory candidate in B.C., president of Focus on the Family and chief of staff to Reform party leader Preston Manning, has been in the post with Ambrose for about two weeks.
The Liberals attacked Reid's views during the last election campaign by distributing his controversial comments to reporters. They circulated an abbreviated list of quotes again Tuesday after Graham used the opening volley in the Commons question period to challenge Reid's appointment.
Reid is a high-profile opponent of same-sex marriage. He's also challenged Muslims to show that their religion is peaceful rather than "based on threats, intimidation and terrorism," and he once lamented that English Canada "could be following Quebec's lead" on attitudes to marriage, sex and abortion.
The latest Liberal complaints were given short shrift by the Tories.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Graham the Conservative government defends the rights of gays and lesbians.
"At the same time, we also defend the right of people of religious faith to practice their religion and to express their religious views."
Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard told the House that Reid had headed an unnamed organization that disputed the science of climate change, perhaps a more germane criticism of his new job as chief to the environment minister.
In response, Ambrose mounted no defence of her new chief of staff, but instead chose to recite what she said were failures in past Liberal environmental policy. She did not make herself available to reporters following question period.
A spokeswoman, Shannon Haggerty, later said she didn't know if Reid had ever questioned climate change. But she said Ambrose's failure to respond directly to Robillard should not be taken as a dodge.
"I wouldn't read too much into that," said Haggerty. "I mean, it's question period."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Graham the Conservative government defends the rights of gays and lesbians.
ROTFLMFAO !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 12, 2006 6:25:23 GMT -5
What to make of Iggy? Incredibly callous initial statement in August (the full quote runs "This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that"), what is apparently his unfiltered personal opinion re: war crimes on the Radio-Canada program and at the press conference yesterday but then a press release that attempts to soft pedal and obfuscate. Partial marks for honesty, I guess, just about zero for political acumen (or sensitivity, for that matter)...
Furor costs Ignatieff key backer
CAMPBELL CLARK
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA – Michael Ignatieff's comment that Israel committed a "war crime" in Lebanon cost him the support of a Toronto MP Wednesday and sent the Liberal leadership front-runner scurrying to deflect charges that he is gaffe-prone.
Susan Kadis, co-chair of Mr. Ignatieff's Toronto-area campaign, jumped ship with a sharp rebuke that he should have known better.
And Liberal MP Keith Martin, an Ignatieff supporter, distanced the party from the statement.
At a news conference in Toronto Wednesday, Mr. Ignatieff stuck to his assertion that Israel's bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana was a war crime – but he spread the blame for war crimes to Hezbollah .
"I believe war crimes were committed in the war in Lebanon. They were committed on both sides," he told reporters.
Mr. Ignatieff insisted that he is a "friend of Israel" and that "critical friends are the best friends to have" – adding that in his personal life, the friends who are closest to him also feel free to be critical of him.
Wednesday, he faced no shortage of critics, including supporters, leadership rivals, Jewish groups and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The controversy is especially embarrassing for Mr. Ignatieff because he sparked it while retracting an earlier misstep.
In an appearance Sunday on the Radio-Canada television show Tout le monde en parle, Mr. Ignatieff said he regretted remarking in August that he was not "losing sleep" over civilian deaths in Lebanon, an assertion that played particularly badly in pro-Lebanon Quebec.
"I showed a lack of compassion. It was a mistake. And when you make a mistake, even off the cuff, one must admit it," Mr. Ignatieff said on the talk show. "I was a professor of human rights. I am also a professor of rights in war. And what happened in Qana was a war crime. And I should have said that, that's clear."
Wednesday, that led Ms. Kadis, MP for Thornhill, a Toronto-area riding with a large Jewish community, to slam the door on Mr. Ignatieff's campaign.
"Michael is an intelligent person and I would think that he would have a better handle on the Middle East given his years of experience on human rights and international law," she said in a statement.
While Mr. Ignatieff said he was "pained" by Ms. Kadis's departure, the incident may cause broader damage to his campaign because it reinforces the criticism that he is prone to rookie mistakes that could hurt the Liberals if he becomes leader.
His supporters insist Mr. Ignatieff simply has a straight-talking style.
"If you're forthright on everything, maybe once in a while you'll say something you didn't quite mean, like the ‘losing sleep' comment," Toronto MP John McCallum said. "But on the whole, I think a lot of people find it refreshing to have a politician who is not afraid to say what he believes."
The Prime Minister, however, was quick to exploit the opening, saying he cannot figure out what Mr. Ignatieff believes.
"In the summer, he said he didn't lose any particular sleep over the event. Yesterday he said it was a war crime, and today his spokesperson is saying that's not quite what he meant, it was slightly more nuanced. Our position has always been that was a terrible tragedy," Mr. Harper said in Vancouver.
Inside the Liberal Party, the comments attracted criticism from Mr. Ignatieff's rivals and caused anxiety for his backers.
The leadership front-runner has now offended supporters of both sides with separate comments on the hot-button issue of Middle East politics, at a time when the leaderless Liberals have struggled to find a common stand on the topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 13, 2006 4:46:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 13, 2006 9:20:26 GMT -5
Pasted/copied the whole thing to be read later this weekend ...
Meanwhile ... Back at the ranch ...
Harper accuses Liberals of being anti-Israel
Furor grows as PM seizes on Ignatieff's war-crime comment
CAMPBELL CLARK AND MICHAEL VALPY
OTTAWA and TORONTO -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday accused the Liberal Party of an anti-Israeli bias, charging that Michael Ignatieff's comment that Israel committed a war crime against Lebanon this summer reflects the leanings of most Liberal leadership candidates.
All the major contenders for the Liberal leadership quickly criticized Mr. Harper for lobbing "insults" and "lies." Beyond the anti-Conservative solidarity, murmurs were growing within the party about whether Mr. Ignatieff's style might prove a liability if he leads the Liberals in an election.
"This is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually all of the candidates for the Liberal leadership," the Prime Minister said about Mr. Ignatieff's remarks that an Israeli strike on the Lebanese village of Qana that killed 28 civilians was a war crime. "I don't think it's helpful or useful."
Mr. Harper's comments exploit concerns expressed by many in the Jewish community that the Liberal Party did not back Israel strongly enough in this summer's conflict -- and the perception that the Conservatives have emerged as Israel's defender in Canada.
A visibly angry Bob Rae, noting that his wife and children are Jewish, said he has been associated with the Jewish community his entire life and likened Mr. Harper's comments to accusing an opponent of being anti-Catholic. He said it is dangerous "to suggest there is a pro-Israel party in Canada and an anti-Israel party in Canada."
"It's untrue. It's a big lie. It's a big smear. And it isn't going to work on me. And if he thinks he can get away with it, he's sadly mistaken," Mr. Rae said.
"It's just a basically thoughtless, deeply divisive thing to say, and I think it's something we to have to put a stop to right now. That's it. We cannot carry on politics in this country like this. It will not work. It divides Canadians. It's something for which he should be thoroughly embarrassed."
Another contender, Stéphane Dion, said the Prime Minister insulted everyone who wanted to see a ceasefire in the fighting between Israel and Lebanon.
"He is insulting all the people that legitimately thought that the solution was a ceasefire. And these people are not anti-Israel. The vast majority of them, they thought that the best way to help a friend was to request a ceasefire," Mr. Dion said. "I will not allow the Prime Minister to distort what was said in so shameful a way."
While the controversy began with questions over whether Mr. Ignatieff went too far (it cost him the backing of Toronto MP Susan Kadis), it turned yesterday to accusations that Mr. Harper had stooped to shameful smears. While the Middle East emerges as a political issue in Canada from time to time, rarely have there been allegations of outright bias.
Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy described Mr. Harper's "brand of politics [as] creating divisions within the country and diminishing Canada's reputation" abroad. He said it was unfair and unacceptable to brand the Liberal Party as anti-Israel, and damaging to the quality of public life in the country.
Mr. Ignatieff declined a request for an interview yesterday, but issued a statement accusing Mr. Harper of "playing crass politics."
"The Liberal Party has always been a friend of Israel and I will always stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and the Canadian Jewish community to defend Israel's right to respond when it is attacked by terrorists or when its neighbours wrongfully deny its right to exist," he said.
Mr. Ignatieff's campaign has taken a hit over his remarks, however, and the incident has raised new questions about whether he has a tendency to trip into controversy that could cost the Liberal Party if he led them in a general election.
On Sunday, Mr. Ignatieff said on a French-language talk show that he regretted a remark made in August that he was not "losing sleep" over civilian deaths in Lebanon.
"I was a professor of human rights and I am also a professor of the laws of war and what happened in Qana was a war crime and I should have said that. That's clear," he said.
On Wednesday, Mr. Ignatieff said both sides in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah militants were responsible for war crimes.
Jewish groups have criticized the remark, and yesterday, B'nai Brith Canada's executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, called on Liberal Leader Bill Graham to denounce the comment "to ensure that anti-Israel rhetoric does not become part and parcel of the leadership campaign."
Some said Mr. Ignatieff's comments were especially offensive because he cited his credentials as an international human-rights expert as he uttered them.
University of British Columbia war-crimes expert Michael Byers, author of the book War Law, said that while Mr. Ignatieff is not a lawyer or expert on the technicalities of the laws of war, he is knowledgeable about international humanitarian law and is a respected authority in the related field of ethics in conflicts. Mr. Ignatieff's campaign continued to receive complaints about his remarks yesterday.
But insiders said that the front-runner will not change direction, that his comments reflected his straight-talking, provocative style and that his campaign will simply have to take some lumps.
But MP Judy Sgro, who leads a group of 14 uncommitted leadership convention delegates in her York West riding, said: "It's a whole lot of little impacts that are there to take a bit away from Ignatieff."
Ms. Sgro said all four major contenders raise doubts about their "winnability" -- and that whether it is political inexperience or a straight-talking style, Mr. Ignatieff's controversial comments raise concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 13, 2006 10:21:13 GMT -5
David Herle, who I normally think of as a bit of a dork (Liberal election campaign co-chair in 2004 & 2006 – 'nuff said), made a comment on Ignatieff's "gaffe" on Newsworld yesterday that implied that he intended to cause a stir as a means of shedding some of his image of being too far to the the right of the grass roots of the Liberal Party. Ignatieff's problem on second, third or subsequent ballots, of course, being that he appears to have very limited room to grow; the supporters of Rae, Dion, Kennedy, Dryden, etc. all being considerably to his left. So this might have been a bit of an extreme way to free up enough votes to put him over the top. It just about makes sense...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 19, 2006 8:05:43 GMT -5
Now this is an interesting twist: Greens woo TurnerNo doubt Garth Turner was a bit of a handful for the Con party establishment to manage, although dumping him out of the blue in a minority situation – unless McVety and the wingnuts really are calling the shots – is a weird one. I don't know why they wouldn't have just give him something relatively inconsequential to do – committee chair, special adviser to the PM on urban outreach, whatever… You have to wonder whether Harper – control freak and all but not so hot on the interpersonal stuff – really has a handle on his caucus at all. The possibility of Turner going to the Greens, though… Could be a good fit for both of them: Turner gets a continuing platform (ego gratification), which he soon won't have as an independent and the Greens get status. Not official party status, which they already have with Elections Canada anyway but media status. With an MP in the Commons, suddenly they're no longer marginalized. They'll be scrummed after sessions of the House, they'll be invited to field talking heads on Politics, they'll make The National, Elizabeth May will not be able to be excluded from the Leaders' debates in the next election (she will fucking shred Stephen Harper)… So obviously a potential major boost for the Green Party but possibly a major turning point for Canadian politics as well. It's likely that the "green plan" and Clean Air Act that the government will unveil later today will be little more than hollow deception. The leaks so far (intensity-based greenhouse targets, etc.), the attempts to cloud the distinction between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, the Con's environmental platform in the last election, the fact that they have no one with any real credibility on these issues at all does not, to wildly understate, instil confidence. Despite the fact that our actions have not always matched good intentions, I believe that forward-thinking environmental stewardship is a core element of Canadians' self-image. As we start to see the first tangible effects of global warming, it also becomes a gnawing (conscious or subconscious) concern. Undoubtedly, we have a way to go but I believe many people are already way ahead of the politicians on this. The realization is dawning that though there will be sacrifices involved, this has become an urgent priority. Precisely how we respond will be our next great national debate, on the order of free trade in the 80s, debt reduction in the 90s or health care over the last few years. This Conservative party is ill equipped to grasp any of this (in contrast, for example, to the Mulroney PC's, who actually brought Elizabeth May into the fold for a couple of years as an advisor to the environment minister). The way the polls are going, this government may turn out to be something of a flash in the pan, but if May brings Garth Turner on board and uses to her newfound media visibility to take the lead on opposing Harper's green plan, you've potentially got not only to an upswing in the fortunes of the Green Party but perhaps a realigning of the federal political landscape. |
|
Can you translate? 
