Today's editorial, 'Shame'? Hardly, not only espouses the same ideas I had, but even uses some of the same words:
No one--including us --is accusing the MP in question, Navdeep Bains, of any illegal behaviour. And voters are entitled to make their own individual judgments on whether the PM was engaging in dirty pool by opening the pages of the Sun in the privileged environment of the House of Commons. But they would be advised to ignore the slanted, indignant language that some other media outlets are trying to disguise as impartial reporting.
The PM is being accused of suggesting that the Liberals changed their policy on ant terror legislation to protect Mr. Bains' father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, or, more generally, to cripple an Air India investigation that many in the Sikh community oppose. In fact, it is only by clairvoyance that reporters can claim to know what Mr. Harper would have said in his complete reply. He was shouted down long before he had the chance to make the "suggestion" being freely attributed to him (readers may wonder why the Liberals did not sit quietly and let him continue covering himself with "shame").
But even if Mr. Harper intended to suggest what he is being accused of suggesting, his only "shame" lies in saying what millions of Canadians are thinking. The Sikh voting bloc that Mr. Bains drew to the Dion camp (via Gerard Kennedy) at the Liberal convention in December is a critical reason why it is Mr. Dion, as opposed to Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff, who now sits as Leader of the Opposition. Why would it be out of bounds to suggest that Mr. Dion's sudden and stalwart opposition to key anti-terrorism provisions -- even over the objections of many influential members of his own divided caucus -- might somehow be traced to those same provisions being potentially used to compel testimony from the supporters of a king making MP?
This is the first example of any attempt at impartial comment on this debacle that I have come across. Ralph Goodale revealed in many recent interviews that the Sun article was in distributed along with other noteworthy newspaper articles as usual that day. So it would seem that the Liberals were anticipating that this might be brought up, and they wanted to prevent it from being read into the official record.
But by stopping the PM from reading the whole story, they ended up bringing more attention to the issue than if they had just let him finish it, and then either attack him then for alleged defamation when they had some kind of proof, or else just quietly go on to another topic and hope the whole thing would die.
Harper knew that the story itself would not be carried by most MSM. He was talking straight to the people.
* * * *
More fallout at Steve Janke - Prominent Sikh Liberal Resigns...
(H/T National Newswatch)
Chronicle Herald - Air India Families Plead for Justice
National Post - No Apologies
Ottawa Citizen - "... Senate Supports Terror Law".
* * * *
Friday Afternoon Update: Vancouver Sun chews out Harper:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper abused his privilege this week when he cited a story by Vancouver Sun reporter Kim Bolan to suggest that the Liberals are opposing an extension of an Anti-Terrorism Act provision set to expire next week because of a connection to one of their MPs.
Bolan's exclusive report that the father-in-law of Ontario MP Navdeep Bains is on a witness list to testify before an investigative hearing in relation to the Air India bombing made no such connection.
My only question is, why did Kim Bolan bother mentioning Bains?
14 comments:
The liberal media's views on things are definitely not those of average Canadians.
The National Post's position, is likely what most people think.
Note that Dion's using the "some will get unfairly persecuted" line now.
His own position is confirming Harper's "smear".
Any way you slice it, this looks dirty. Exposing the dirt may be decried as "unfair" by the Libs, but to Ma and Pa Mackenzie, its just what the doctor ordered.
Keep doing what your doing Harper.
You're absolutely right when you said Liberals are Clairvoyant. It would seem that they jumped the gun in their indignation. Harper only did get in one sentence before being shouted down. Unless the Liberals have a copy of Harper's complete statement, they really have nothing to complain about.
I notice no other parties are saying much.
Well look on the bright side. It is good that these questions are being raised in a national newspaper instead of the usual Liberals playing victims bias being printed in others, such as the Toronto Star. I have not yet seen any Liberal publicly state that the article from which the PM was reading in the Vancouver Sun was inaccurate or untrue.
The Liberal Party was in agreement with the extension of the anti-terrorism clauses in the bill as late as October, so it is a legitimate issue for questions to be raised concerning their change of heart only 4 months later.
I have read the Toronto Star and they are spinning the issue so hard that you would believe that the Liberals are such a clean innocent party that have “NEVER” participated in any smear tactics since their formation and the Conservatives are the evil ones who should be forever condemned.
Face it, politics can be bloody and smearing comes from all sides, so if the Liberals insist on dishing it out, they should expect to receive some back in return.
The Toronto Stars and other MSM that are now falling over each other to defend the Liberals have conveniently forgotten that it was the Liberal government that was ordered to pay $2 million dollars to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney for damaging his reputation. Without any evidence, they publicly accusing him of being involved in the Airbus Scam and actually went further by sending letters to foreign governments accusing him of being a criminal and requesting information from them. So the Liberals can play victims all they want, but I doubt that many Canadians are going to be shedding tears for them.
If you look at Stephen Taylor's site, it appears the Liberals wanted to boycott the HoC yesterday (which would have been an excellent way to make the PM look bad without having to be exposed to the issue).
It turns out that PMSH showed up and scrummed reporters with families of the Air India bombing in tow. This forced the Libs to attend QP where any attempt to make Harper look mean was countered by hard questions about why Dion is flip-flopping on such important security legislation.
Harper made Canada pay attention to a story the LPC and the PPG wanted to quietly disappear.
He's so mean.
The Libs and the PPG bringing knives to gunfights...
The opposition parties, all of them, have no leg to stand on. The SCoC has already ruled, in 2004, that the clause in the ATA are constitutional, no Charter rights denied.
If the clause has survived a Charter challenge, what possible 'reason' is there for voting the extension down?
the title of your post reveals much. the entire incident reeks of innuendo. it seems to me that harper and those who support his latest loss of good judgement are the clairvoyants.
without a sliver of evidence, harper is willing to imply that the LPC is harbouring terrorists. if the accusations aren't based on fact but merely speculation, it's clear which side is peering into a crystal ball.
furthermore, your assertion that harper was speaking directly to the people since he believed the story wouldn't be run by the MSM seems flawed. i think the vancouver sun (of the sun media chain) is considered part of the mainstream.
with support for this govt stuck around 33 %, harper was hardly speaking to the people but rather, to his people, a much, much smaller group than many conservatives would care to believe.
bottom line, the mere suggestion that the liberal party is a home to terrorists without anything other than wild speculation from the right is another tragedy for all canadians under this mean-spirited and short-sighted conservative government.
"without a sliver of evidence, harper is willing to imply that the LPC is harbouring terrorists. if the accusations aren't based on fact but merely speculation, it's clear which side is peering into a crystal ball."
Unfortunately Harper never got to finish his statement, so to imply an accusation requires clairvoyance on the part of Liberals or at least some inside knowledge.
If I say "The newspaper says you're a....", but I don't get to finish it because you yell back "I'm not an arse, shame, shame", you might have missed "...arse, but I don't believe it based the actions I've observed".
That's the problem here, Liberals jumped the gun before Harper finished.
"furthermore, your assertion that harper was speaking directly to the people since he believed the story wouldn't be run by the MSM seems flawed. i think the vancouver sun (of the sun media chain) is considered part of the mainstream." without bringing it up, the story would have been relegated to the Sun only, now it's everywhere.
As for your 33% support BS, they still have more support than other parties. your point is just irrelevant
"with support for this govt stuck around 33 %, harper was hardly speaking to the people but rather, to his people, a much, much smaller group than many conservatives would care to believe"
You're assuming Harper is speaking on behalf of the people. He's merely speaking to then people.
The difference is speaking to people doesn't mean they'll all agree or listen, but at least the message is out there.
You seem to keep falling into the trap that politicians are speaking on behalf of the people Jeff.
Jeff Davidson said...
without a sliver of evidence, harper is willing to imply that the LPC is harbouring terrorists. if the accusations aren't based on fact but merely speculation, it's clear which side is peering into a crystal ball.
How do you go from pointing out a possible conflict of interest (and delegate buying at the expense of national security) to implying the harboring of terrorists?
No one is accusing the Liberals of harboring terrorists, just being soft on security in the pursuit of power.
The LIbs can always bring a copy of the TorStar in and start using the articles there to smear the Conservatives some more!
Which would promote the Star from simple booster of the Libs to official policy creator!
Jeff - I said: "Harper knew that the story itself would not be carried by most MSM."
No one is accusing the Liberals of harboring terrorists, just being soft on security in the pursuit of power.
Exactly. Thank you Molar.
another tragedy for all canadians under this mean-spirited and short-sighted conservative government.
This is getting a bit old, but since you guys have no money for ads, I guess you've got to use what's available. *Yawn*
If the clause has survived a Charter challenge, what possible 'reason' is there for voting the extension down?
I've noticed that our Liberal friends are ignoring this part of wilson61's post.
With respect to the proposed extension, it's good that a fair number of Liberal senators are trying to take seriously their roles in the "Chamber of sober second thought." Maybe they can give enough courage to enough Liberal MPs to defy Dion so the extension can pass.
Won't matter SCC has gutted the law!
That's what they were paid to do...right!
Bug Boy ...."another tragedy for all canadians under this mean-spirited and short-sighted conservative government."
Stuck on last years rhetoric and can't even get up to speed!
Post a Comment