Well, folks, we've obviously got ourselves a Harper fan who gladly ignores reality to paint a rosier picture than actually exists:
May sound like a silly question, but.... why?
We already have independent organizations (elections Canada, the police, the courts) that are set up to investigate such matters. While it might make good political rhetoric to shout "You failed because you didn't act immediately", shouldn't we at least wait and see what the actual situation was before we start calling for heads to roll?
After all, if this is just some single disgruntled person trying to pull a prank (and who's actions are already covered by existing laws) then there's not much point in going further.
I've already stated that I'm willing to give up the independent investigation thing...and instead raised the question, in regard to investigation, that if Harper is really interested in an open investigation, why does he claim that the Liberals should release their calling records, but insist that the Conservatives do not need to?
Not sure if that's quite right.
Yes, the government has limited the amount that government scientists can talk to the media, but as far as I know they are not prevented from actually publishing in peer reviewed journals (and the link you provided doesn't make any sort of claim about that either.)
A) you skip over the whole "government has limited the amount that government scientists can talk to the media" as if it is unimportant, ignoring the fact that no previous gov't has exercised the same level of control over federally funded scientists. Or that Canada's policy is going in the
opposite direction of most other democratic nations, including the U.S., who have
decreased control of scientists since Bush left office.
B) You are correct about the publication thing, my apologies for that factual error. That doesn't mitigate the point that Harper's gov't is the most secretive and least transparent one that we've ever had.
A couple of points:
- The article you referenced doesn't really give any evidence. Instead it points to "rumors" that they plan to prorogue. Rumors from who? Shouldn't we wait for a little more evidence before we condemn them for proroguing again?
There are no
rumors that Harper has twice prorogued parliament...that is historical fact, and that is what I was referring to. "He might not prorogue this time" has no impact whatsoever on the fact that he
has done it twice before.
- Despite what you might think, Proroguing parliament actually happens fairly frequently... it supposedly happened 4 times during the last Liberal government (and lets just say that doing so wasn't necessarily to benefit the opposition.)
This is the
most disingenuous of any of your comments. Yes, past governments have prorogued. They have done so
when the bulk of existing legislative business has been concluded. They have
not done so when in the midst of huge scandals (such as hiding information about afghan detainees), or potential non-confidence votes.
Proroguing parliament means that all existing legislation is not only delayed, but must be started over
from the beginning when parliament re-convenes. Proroguing parliament also means that existing committees are disbanded, and new ones formed after Parliament resumes. Harper used a legal tactic in the most dishonest manner possible, to sidestep legitimate, serious issues, and then take advantage of new committees (more favorable to the Conservatives) and a new Conservative majority of the Senate.
Furthermore, Harper's first proroguing lasted a total of 63 days, far far longer than the average of 22 days that has been typical for the past three decades.
Proroguation was a blatantly self-serving tactic, used by Harper to silence legitimate questions and challenges, both forcing his critics to start all over from ground zero, and giving him the chance to gain power/control over the discussion when it resumed.
Again, these are not the hallmarks of a man who values transparency, or democracy.
So, what you're saying is that no individual or organization should ever use the Appeals process, and whatever the courts initially rule should never be challenged?
No. I'm saying that
no previous government has openly challenged Canadian courts on issues of freedom of information as frequently or as adamantly as the Harper government. These are issues of Canadians having the right to have access to information about how its government is making its decisions, and what its leaders are doing -- and Harper is saying, time and time again, that "No, you don't have the right to know that, only the information I've decided is suitable for you will be released".
Oh, by the way, remember the 'In and Out' scandal? The conservatives actually got an early court victory in that case. Yet elections Canada decided to continue with appeals. Why aren't you blaming them for continuing court cases after "courts rule against them"?
Wow...just a few paragraphs above, you were referring to Elections Canada as a suitably "independent investigator" to pursue questions of election fraud, and now they're the enemy?
Two key differences:
1) Elections Canada is not the government. They are an independent, non-partisan agency that operates entirely independently of whatever party is in power. There's a huge difference between an independent entity using the courts to challenge government activities and gain
more information, and the leader of the Canadian government using the courts to try to
hide information. And there, more than anything else, is the key difference...Elections Canada are not seeking to say "Canadians don't have the right to have access to information", they are saying, "Canadians have the right to have the government give them all the information".
2) Elections Canada doesn't have a demonstrated history/pattern of challenging court rulings; Harper does. In Harper's case, I'm not talking about one incident, I'm talking about a regular pattern of ongoing efforts to subvert Canadian Freedom of Information laws.
Another one doomed to repeat history. [/OT]