Friday, March 28, 2008

Here's another injustice for Dan McTeague to champion - The HRC

Liberal MP Dan McTeague does seem to like being in the limelight, and some of his causes are worthwhile.

However, yesterday he stated that "Foreign Affairs violated Brenda Martin's privacy rights by allegedly leaking a department report" according to Canadian Press.

Well, as my insightful reader Gabby pointed out in comments, this is all a bit rich:

So now Ms. Martin's privacy rights have been violated?
Who splashed her story all over the MSM - press, TV, radio?
Who made sure her name was on practically every news report?
And which parties continuosly accuse the government of secrecy, lack of transparency, and unwillingness to release documents under the freedom of information requests?
So now that the government releases information, it's a violation of Ms. Martin's privacy?
A little consistency would be welcome.

Oh! the hypocrisy!

So, if you're concerned about privacy rights being violated, Mr. McTeague, how about shining a light on this abuse as reported in Jonathan Kay's excellent Post editorial this morning - A disaster for Canada's Human Rights Commission:


Privacy is another concept that the HRC seems to find confusing. The most scandalous disclosure to emerge on Tuesday involved the manner by which investigators logged on to Lemire's Web site.

In what appears to be a ham-fisted attempt to avoid revealing the commission's IP address, they tapped into the unsecured wi-firouter of a 26-year-old Ottawa woman who lived near the commission's 344 Slater St. headquarters. At Tuesday's hearing, a Bell Canada employee read out the woman's name, address and phone number to shocked audience members. A National Post reporter contacted the woman and found that she'd never heard of Lemire, Steacy, or his investigations. Unless she is secretly working undercover for Steacy, it appears that the commission cynically invaded the privacy of an innocent citizen in order to pursue an obscure Web-trawling vendetta; and then caused her name to be read out to the Canadian public, thereby identifying her as an unwitting conduit to neo-Nazi Web sites. One likes to imagine that the privacy commissioner will be having a chat with Dean et al. in coming days.


This is absolutely horrifying. Just think about it. The HRC is trolling and baiting using an innocent citizen's IP address, and then her name gets dragged into this abysmal, taxpayer-funded sinkhole of a Kangaroo Court!

To be fair to Dan McTeague, he has already come out in support of fellow Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin's private member's bill M - 446. (Note how he says there is a "reversal of the presumption of innocence" in the clip. How ironic considering the Martin case where we talk about Mexico's horrible justice system!!)

I think we need Dan McTeague's help in getting this issue front and centre in the media.

Every citizen in Canada should be warned about how Free Speech is not given 'any value' by HRC's Dean Steacy.

Because when you think about it, aren't even Canadians like Brenda Martin more threatened by lack of free speech than anything else?


* * * *

Update: The Belleville Intelligencer is obviously not so intelligent.

Martin rally still on this weekend. How about a rally against the HRC, folks? Or are you not concerned about your right to free speech and being able to hold rallies?


CTV Update: Brenda Martin says 'leaked' report violates privacy.

Ottawa Citizen: Don't throw stones at Mexico by Gar Purdy.

Uncommon Truths - Brenda Martin: Ms. Damned if you do...

Puerto Vallarta Scene Forum - with postings by Deb Tieleman.

CTV W5 (background)

Privacy czar looking into ‘leaked' report on jailed Canadian
- Globe.

Liberals blast Bernier over leak - Charles Rusnell.

Privacy czar will probe Brenda Martin report leak - CTV.


'Dozens' of people at rally - Globe

103 comments:

paulsstuff said...

Ummm, the report was received under the access to information act by CP. Perhaps McTeague might want to point that out somewhere in his feigned outrage.

Not to mention the report basically just confirmed what Mexican and Canadian authorities had previously stated, that Martin's case was indeed being dealt with including numerous contacts and visits.

I would think Dan McTeague has more important things to deal with. How would we ever know the price of gas is going to rise on a long weekend without McTeague telling us.

Anonymous said...

From today's London Free Press

page 3 "Officials Visited Jailed Woman"


"Canadian officials have regularly visited and telephoned Brenda Martin since her imprisonment in Mexico more than two years ago, contrary to claims by critics, a government report indicates.

A Foreign Affairs Dept. report provides a detailed account of contacts between the Canadian consulate in Guadalajara and the jailed woman since her February 2006 arrest.

Consular officials spoke often with Martin, 51, by telephone, sometimes several times a day, and visited the prison at least a dozen times. "

This certainly does bolster the claims that the gov't has been making doesn't it?

It continues "The first entry is Feb. 18 2006, the day after the Mexican authorities arrested Martin over allegations she was implicit in her ex-boss's shady dealings. The last one is Jan. 7 2008.

The report showe Martin rebuffed officials' attempts to contact her on at least five occaisons."

Alberta Girl said...

The more facts that come out in this matter the more it looks like Brenda is the author of her own misfortune - although leftie-commentor Gayle would blame her "mental-condition".

But lets face it, it seems that she has been caught in a number of lies that seem to show that even if she were not in a Mexican jail, she seems to be a woman who wants things done HER way. The very facts of her life choices seem to say she is a woman who runs away from her life choices and her personal responsiblity for her own fate. And she does not seem to care who she takes down with her.

Given Dan McTeague's feigned "outrage" at the "leak",I am sticking to my belief that like the Schrieber visits by Thibault, Danny-boy may have made visits to Ms. Martin to encourage this story to take off and now things might be getting a little too close to those facts coming out.

Manufactured stories seem to be the Liberals forte - time will tell if this is one as well.

Anonymous said...

It's feeling more and more like another Liberal attempt to stick a needle in Harper's eye.

Didn't work with me.

Harper still rules.

His strategy re: McGuinty/Flaherty tango was superb. Of course the usual suspects have been suckered in on that front as well. Brilliant use of the Kinsella kick-ass manual.

Anonymous said...

Paulsstuff says the info was obtained through access to information. How does he know ?

The CP story suggests the CP reporter, who two days earlier exposed Helena Guergis for not having visited Brenda in jail, opting instead to drink Corona beer at a hastily organized reception of Canadian expats in Guadalajara, received the info. No investigation or request, which would have taken months to obtain.

Nice deflection. if i were a betting type, i think the burnt Helena Guergis has some splainin'
to do.

Kim

Alberta Girl said...

"No investigation or request, which would have taken months to obtain."

So to ask the same question of you, Kim.

"How do you know?"

Gayle said...

Sigh...

I guess some of you are not aware that meeting with consular officials is not the same thing as meeting with the government.

Perhaps you should check out the comments section in the Globe and Mail story in order to educate yourselves.

Consular officials have limited powers, and they specifically do not have the power to intervene. The government has the power and authority to apply diplomatic pressure to secure the rights of its citizens.

That is why Stockwell Day went to Saudi officials to seek clemency for the Canadian citizen sentenced to death there. He could not leave that to "consular officials" because they have no authority to seek clemency.

Brenda Martin has been asking the government,not the consulate, to intervene.

The Harper government is being selective in choosing which Canadians they will choose to help.

Gayle said...

And to be clear, "consular officials" are not the "government".

paulsstuff said...

"Paulsstuff says the info was obtained through access to information. How does he know ?"

So I guess CTV and CBC news both had that fact wrong on their news broadcasts this morning?

Nice try. Liberal's tried to use Martin to create another so-called scandal, and like Schreiber, and trying to use the deceased Cadman to try and score points, they look again to have egg on their faces.

And I would imagine Brenda Martin's sympathy rating in the public's eye will take another hit.

Hey anon, any idea why McTeague wasn't outraged last week when the Mexican government released basically the same info, outlining contacts, visits, etc.?

Better yet, take a wander over too National Newswatch and read details of the report. Sometimes she was contacted several times in one day. Refused a better cell because she wanted to keep her fridge. Refused to meet Canadian officials 5 times when she could have. Granted access to call her mother once a week, but skipped a week due to a beauty pageant at the jail.

Wanna know why the report is so detailed? Looks like Foreign Affairs officials knew early on what type of person they were dealing with.

Anonymous said...

The Harper government is being selective in choosing which Canadians they will choose to help.

I want my tax dollars to help those who deserve it, not just because we share the same citizenship. There are plenty of people in this country for whom, if they were on fire, I wouldn't cross the street to spit on to put the fire out and that doesn't change because they're in a far-off jail. Furthermore, it seems to me that Brenda Martin's rights are violated only when the publicity toward her is negative.

Gayle said...

Anon - if only our rights were subject to your approval.

Fortunately, they are not.

OMMAG said...

Saw McTeague on CTV promoting this rally.
This is the REAL Dog and Pony Show... the open display of sanctimony and blatant hypocrisy by LIberal pols and their supporters.

As for that fallout from the HRC hearing.
The Bell Employee was obviously NOT coached well enough by the HRC legal eagles......
But for the uninformed highlights the fact that Internet Security and Privacy is virtually non-existent.

The really BIG deal in this is the FACT that using someone else's network connection without express approval is "Theft of Telecommunications" and subject to criminal prosecution.

This makes the matter one that the police should be involved in and opens the door for that innocent victim to launch some serious civil action against the HRC and it's agents.

All in all very revealing about the mindset and the level of competence in the civil service ...

I'm hoping the folks at the CHRC all loose their jobs.

wilson said...

It should NEVER be a 'right' for a Canadian citizen (private or government) to hide behind privacy rights,
while publicly leveling false accusations at any person, corporation or government official/department.

Will Ms.Martin be required to file with Revenue Canada for the past 6 years?
When you enjoy Canadian rights, you also have a duty to the Canadian Government.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Will Ms.Martin be required to file with Revenue Canada for the past 6 years?

Wilson, where do you come up with these? You're always one step ahead of everyone else.

Darn good question.

wilson said...

Being the Mom of 4 + my late sisters 3, ya learn to stay one step ahead of the crowd!

Anonymous said...

And the whines continue at Cherniak's blog. Unbelievable, the speed at which lemmings that move when they smell a scandal isn't it?

One would think they'd put as much energy into, um....perhaps their own policies or the fate of their sinking Liberal ship.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So Wilson, you're a 'she'. How about that? I always that Wilson was a 'he' for some reason. Maybe I was thinking about Tim the tool man's neighbour. lol!

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez, re:Danny McTeague,Brenda Martin et al.

1.) Most media outlets I've read, seen and listened to, refer to "the media, obtaining, under Access to Information Statutes..." athen publicising excerpts from same. Their tempest. their teapot.

2.) Dan MacTea was nothing more than a seriously de-clawed, domesticated and neutered participant in Thursday's Michael Coren TV Show, where they dealt, at length with the B.M. issue. And this, before any release of some of the aberrational reports from consular files.

I WILL allow that reports of some of Ms. Martin's peculiar behaviour may well be attributable to what i used to label "incarcerational stress misconduct syndrome."

Little or no slack whatsoever for the yahoos that have really cranked this issue up into their own staged and stooged photo ops and emotional anti Neo-Con fizzle shots.

McTeague and his ilk are in the same boat that Chretien and I seem to share. We all have a condtion that allows our distorted mouths to enjoy the wonderful knack of being able to "speak out of first one side, then out of the other."

I acquired my facility through a "mishap" in the army. Chretien came by his through a malady.

McTeague and his fellow running-dogs of leftoid disinformation come by theiors in equally honest fashion. They are accomplished two-faced, fork-tongued doublespeakers, through their commitment to slavish devotion of partisan ideological nonsense. Plus,they're amazingly slow-witted and more than somewhat stooopid!

P.S. Any feedback on the two knucle-heads [one D "Cordaire" as the CTV talking head calls him, and the other, the NDP dude]?
Both, sounding and looking remamrkably like "Alvin and the Chipmunks," openly,blatantly and simultaneously called Government folks "liars!" For.Affairs and MND claim to have been forced, by NATO, to recsind invites to NATO's Bucharest round-about. Coderre is "twooly ticked." So too,Paul whathisface and Don Newman as well.


tis too phunnee!

tj

t.e.&o.e.

Ruth said...

I always find that I am wondering if someone is a 'she' or a 'he' too, plus their age.

wilson said...

LOL, our neighbors use the Mr Wilson! thing, from Tim the tool man and Dennis the Menace...
I always figured that blog owners see my email address and knew I am female. Not so?

Anonymous said...

Hey Alberta Girl - get the wax out of your ears, pick up the phone and ask CP where they got the story. Glad to see you're all trying to spin this. Too bad you werent around 2 years ago when she was thrown into jail in violation of her rights under Mexican law. Now your beloved Party seems to feel comfortable with breaking the Privacy Act in Canada. Mexican justice has nothing on Conservative law breakers. You should be hanging your heads in shame for beating up on a defenceless woman.

kim

Ruth said...

When did Canadian Privacy laws cover someone that has lived in Mexico for 10 years. Just wondering?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm just watching CTV and Dan McTeague is on. I can't believe what I'm hearing.

I hope to find a link soon.

Alberta Girl said...

"You should be hanging your heads in shame for beating up on a defenceless woman."

Kim,Kim, Kim - if I need to take the wax out of my ears, you need to take off the liberal blinders, sweetie.

This "defenceless" woman has had ample opportunity to have representation that would have helped her a looonnnggg time ago, but SHE chose to go her own way in this mess. She chose her OWN lawyer, she chose to rebuke offers of help, she chose to launch a constitutional challenge rather than just go to court and prove her innocence(something that is highly suspicious given her claims she is innocent).

So don't harp to me about "poor, defenceless, Brenda". Sounds like she is being treated with kid gloves down there UNLIKE the saudi arabia case where injustice might really be happening.

But you wouldn't want to let that get in the way of using Brenda for your own political purposes, now would you.

It is like talking to a brick wall trying to get the FACTS into your heads....sigh

Alberta Girl said...

"I'm just watching CTV and Dan McTeague is on. I can't believe what I'm hearing."

Can you give us a hint, Joanne?

kursk said...

I propose that Gayle gets an opportunity to show Omar Khadr how much she thinks of his Canadian rights, by sponsoring him and having him bunk up at her place till the wee dear gets everything sorted out..

I mean, we can't be choosey, can we? Take the good with the bad i say!..

She can get back to us in six months or so and tell us if she still feels the same about being selective in whom we help overseas..

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I think McTeague is going to launch a formal complaint with the privacy commissioner. Good grief! His rhetoric is way over the top.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I've added an update to the main post. Brenda Martin is back to vilifying the government:

In a telephone interview with CTV Newsnet on Friday, Brenda Martin said the government released the document solely to divert attention from its unwillingness to intervene in her case. She has been held in a Mexican jail for more than two years without a trial.

"I find it horrendous that my privacy would be breached in an attempt to smear my name," said Martin, who blamed the leak on Secretary of State Helena Guergis.

Alberta Girl said...

So I guess proving Brenda and her supporters are stretching the truth is invading her privacy.

I guess it is OK to destroy the reputation of government officials but if the truth shows you have been less than truthful, it is called "privacy invasion".

This whole thing has become over the top and Brenda has lost ANY credibility in my eyes - although I have to admit, there wasn't much to lose as the whole thing stank from the get go.

jad said...

"Will Ms.Martin be required to file with Revenue Canada for the past 6 years?
When you enjoy Canadian rights, you also have a duty to the Canadian Government."

Sorry to spoil a good idea, but if Ms. Martin has lived in Mexico for the last 10 years and spent virtually no time in Canada, I don't believe she has to pay Canadian income tax - sort of like all those nice folks in Lebanon if you remember.

As for Dan McTeague - now who's trying to use Ms. Martin as a political football ? Even the CTV anchor seemed to be having a problem with what he was saying.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sorry to spoil a good idea, but if Ms. Martin has lived in Mexico for the last 10 years and spent virtually no time in Canada, I don't believe she has to pay Canadian income tax - sort of like all those nice folks in Lebanon if you remember.

You're probably right.

Even the CTV anchor seemed to be having a problem with what he was saying.

You noticed that too, eh? She seemed quite incredulous, and she is usually leaning towards the Liberal POV.

Tony said...

It is funny how Brenda Martin and her supporters, including MP Dan McTeague, were previously accusing the Conservative government of doing absolutely nothing to assist her or advance her case with the Mexican authorities. They, not the government, were the ones who made her case a public issue.

Now that the truth has come out that the government was in-fact actively involved in advancing her case, they are now resorting to accusing the authorities of violating her privacy. Nothing that the Conservative government does will ever be good enough for the Liberals and their supporters. They will always find a way to spin a good deed by the government to suit their partisan purposes.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Tony, good point. This is truly a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario.

McTeague's posturing in this situation is disgusting.

fh said...

off topic
has anyone been to garth's site today?

he is one to complain.

did he not refer to the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister of Canada as a " Political WHORE" ?

Merriam - Webster Online Dictionary

whore a venal or unscrupulous person

does any Canadian think this is acceptable behaviour of any MP?

the language used by Garth Turner is disgraceful

Anonymous said...

the London paper says that "the document also offers a glimpse of life in the Puente Grande women's jail, including Martin's skirmishes with inmates, weekly telephone calls to her mother and a prison beauty pageant."

Joanne (True Blue) said...

The really BIG deal in this is the FACT that using someone else's network connection without express approval is "Theft of Telecommunications" and subject to criminal prosecution.

This makes the matter one that the police should be involved in and opens the door for that innocent victim to launch some serious civil action against the HRC and it's agents.


OMMAG - Yeah, that will be something to follow.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I always figured that blog owners see my email address and knew I am female. Not so?

Wilson, I'm using Blogger format and it doesn't have that option. Wordpress does though. I may end up switching over eventually.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

When did Canadian Privacy laws cover someone that has lived in Mexico for 10 years. Just wondering?

Good question.

I have another one. Can you live forever in a foreign country and still be considered a Canadian? Isn't there some stipulation about having to spend a certain amount of time in Canada each year or is that just for health coverage?

Blue Magic said...

Joanne,

Good blogging on this story.

Did you hear the CTV interview on MDL(3/28/08) of Brenda Martin saying this CP story was Helena Guergis fault?

At least, Brenda Martin sound's better.....

Gayle said...

"Now that the truth has come out that the government was in-fact actively involved in advancing her case..."

Once again:

The facts that came out said the consulate was involved in offering her assistance. The consulate has no authority to "advance her case" - only the government can do that.

The government has chosen to speak to various Mexican authorities about her trial, and have suggested to her that she can be transferred back to Canada to serve her inevitable prison sentence. They have not taken steps to attempt to secure her release, which is what she is asking them to do.

The information that has been released by the government is interesting, in a gossipy kind of way, but irrelevant to the issue at hand. Phone calls home to mother, fights with fellow inmates, chats with consular officials and participation in beauty pageants have absolutely nothing to do with her rights as a Canadian citizen to the assistance of her government.

This information was released only to malign her character because the government knows people like you will accept that a prisoner who attends beauty pageants does not deserve the assistance of her government.

Anonymous said...

Gayle the leftist shill was found uttering:
Anon - if only our rights were subject to your approval.

Nowhere did I say anything about her rights because only someone with a leftie's sense of entitlement would believe a peson's rights extend outside his or her own borders. And that precisely is the point you left wing-nuts seem to be missing: the rights accorded to Canadian citizens end at the Canadian border. The Canadian government cannot guarantee anyone's rights outside Canada even if it is willing to go to war to do, which of course lefties don't believe in. Nope, not subject to my approval but subject to the laws, statutes, regulations, and whims of whatever tin-pot dictator happens to be ruling the country in which she is now residing. I don't recall hearing about Brenda Martin being forced at gunpoint to live in a foreign country. The bottom-line here is this: take some personal responsibility for your actions and quit blaming the rest of the world for your own misfortunes (but then that would be a Conservative philosophy).

Alberta Girl said...

"This information was released only to malign her character because the government knows people like you will accept that a prisoner who attends beauty pageants does not deserve the assistance of her government."

My goodness Gayle - you are certainly on your preachers box tonight!

The information was most likely released to show that - despite information put out to the contrary by Brenda and her supporters, the government absolutely have been working on this case. Trying to separate the government and the consulate is ridiculous, but it helps your spin on this.

Her attending a beauty pagent makes not one bit of difference except to perhaps show that she is not in quite the hell-hole she claims to be in.

What Brenda is mad about is that she has been found out and that she isn't quite the sad, downtrodden soul left to rot that she and you and the rest of the bleeding hearts would have us believe.

I assume that you have donated heavily to the "save Brenda" fund. If not, perhaps you want to, I heard on MDL that they are really low on funds.

Oh, and what about that guy in Saudi Arabia who is sentenced to be beheaded. When is it his turn to get some of the left's attention.

Really Gayle, you can spin this however you want, the fact remains that Brenda has been the author of much of what has happened to her. Should the government help her?

Absolutely - and they have been.

You might take the time to read the article Joanne has linked regarding what happened in Bolivia a few years ago. I predict when more information comes out, we will see something quite similiar in this case - despite what Brenda Martin claims about her innocence.

Time will tell.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Actually, I've been out for dinner - just got back & looking forward to watching MDL which I've recorded.

I've also received some very interesting emails from one of my 'sources'. Can't give details right now, but let's just say that there are layers and layers to this story.

Gayle said...

anon - while you do not merit a respectful response, you will get one.

The rights I refer to are the rights accorded to all Canadian citizens that their government will come to their aid when incarcerated in a foreign jurisdiction.

We all have them, whether or not you like it.

Please try not to change the channel next time.

Anonymous said...

What seems to get forgotten is that Ms. Martin could have been out of the country in a very few days if she had listened to the Canadian embassy officials and accepted the services of the lawyer(s) recommended by them.
I am wondering if she even wants to return to Canada. It almost looks like she just wants the Canadian Government to get her out of jail, so she can continue her life in Mexico.
BTW, This was an Interpol operation wasnt it? I dont know if that means anything, except that it wasnt the Mexican authorities that arrested her.
-Lee-

Gayle said...

"Trying to separate the government and the consulate is ridiculous..."

False. The only one whose spin is served by this is you.

Again:

The consulate does NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE DIPLOMATICALLY ON BEHALF OF CANADIAN CITIZENS INCARCERATED ABROAD - THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF THE NATION DOES.

There is a difference, it is huge, and hiding your head in the sand and pretending otherwise is not going to change that.

Again, may I suggest you link back to the Globe and Mail article and read the comments. Someone there quoted the actual powers and authority of consular officials, and they are pretty limited.

"Oh, and what about that guy in Saudi Arabia who is sentenced to be beheaded. When is it his turn to get some of the left's attention."

You feigned ignorance last time in order to avoid my reply, but I will try again.

You see, it is not necessary to pressure the government to do something on this man's behalf, because unlike the Martin case, they actually ARE doing something. Why on earth would liberal MP's get up and complain about what the government is doing, when, in this case, the government is doing the right thing?

Why does this confuse you so?

Gayle said...

"What seems to get forgotten is that Ms. Martin could have been out of the country in a very few days if she had listened to the Canadian embassy officials and accepted the services of the lawyer(s) recommended by them."

Do you have a source for that, because this is the first I heard that line.

By the way, I am not at all sure the embassy "recommends" lawyers. I know they provide a link, but I do not believe they will recommend anyone. It is entirely possible Martin was given advice from people about other, better lawyers.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Did you hear the CTV interview on MDL(3/28/08) of Brenda Martin saying this CP story was Helena Guergis fault?

At least, Brenda Martin sound's better.....


Blue Magic, yes she sounded quite strong and clear-headed in spite of the sniping.

This is what struck me when Paul Macklin was interviewed:

He said "...Brenda is going to have a horrendous death if we don't get financial support from across the country..."

Anyone else hear that? Any comments?

Alberta Girl said...

"The rights I refer to are the rights accorded to all Canadian citizens that their government will come to their aid when incarcerated in a foreign jurisdiction."

Gayle - as you are so big on providing "links" do you have a link regarding what the Canadian governments advice is for Travellers.

To save you some time, I have copied the section that says that the government is the consulate and what they can do for you, which is and has been done for Brenda Martin.

"Consular” refers to the services a government can provide to its citizens who encounter difficulty abroad. These services are clearly established in international law and, more specifically, under the terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which Canada and many other nations are signatories. For further information on the Vienna Convention, contact the Consular Affairs Bureau or consult our Web site.

Canadian consular officials have extensive experience in dealing with the types of problems you may encounter, and they understand how difficult the situation can be for everyone. They are there to help. Stay in touch with them, keep them informed about your situation, and call on them for the assistance you need."

I trust this clears some things up for you.

Gayle said...

AG - so what about the history of Canadian government seeking clemency for Canadians incarcerated abroad? What about Arar, and Samson, and now the poor fellow in Saudi Arabia? You do not think that was the consulate do you? Because I know it was the government - and so do you. (I actually know this first hand being related to someone who was highly placed in one of the relevant consulates at the time.)

You need to pull your head out of the sand. This case is one that demands more dipliomatic intervention - internention that has been extended for countless Canadian citizens before Brenda Martin.

I am not going to say this again - if you cannot understand the difference between the consulate and the elected govenment it is because you are stupid or because you are being willfully blind. Either way, you are wasting my time.

Nice try on the deflection though...

Alberta Girl said...

"I am not going to say this again - if you cannot understand the difference between the consulate and the elected govenment it is because you are stupid or because you are being willfully blind. Either way, you are wasting my time."

Well well I guess I have been told by you Gayle - it must be nice to be so much smarter than we poor saps over here on the right.

Speaking of slinging personal insults....

And with regards to wasting your time - sweetie, NO ONE is forcing you to spend your time commenting.

Gayle said...

Hey AG - thanks for addressing my argument.

Or not...

As for the insults, you have yet to stop so do not complain when it comes right back at you.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. ladies. I may have to call a time-out here. You certainly both are feisty. ;)

Alberta Girl said...

"As for the insults, you have yet to stop so do not complain when it comes right back at you."

Please tell me WHEN I have thrown personal insults like you calling me stupid.

As to addressing your comment, I have attempted to explain things to you as I see them. It is obviously not working so it doesn't make much sense to keep on saying the same things over and over again.

There is a BIG difference between Sampson, Arar and the Saudi man and Brenda Martin. While I am sure that she is not having fun in the Mexican jail, new facts seem to show that she has made alot of the choices herself that have made it less than desirable. The first three men were tortured, Gayle. That is a little different what Brenda is enduring. I would also say that our government probably has different levels of assistance depending on the circumstances of the case. I would say that torture rates higher than someone having to sleep with 11 other women.

I would trust that you would be able to see that.

Alberta Girl said...

"O.K. ladies. I may have to call a time-out here. You certainly both are feisty. ;)"

A little "feisty" debate is always good, Joanne. Ha Ha. But thanks for refereeing!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

You two seem very well matched, which makes it a good debate. I just don't want to see anyone get hurt. The first-aid folks have left for the night. ;)

Gayle said...

I know there is a difference AG. My point is that the consulate has limited authority and the government has more. Ergo, just because the consulate calls her up and chats with her does not mean the government is doing all it can.

I hope you can see that.

Gayle said...

Oh - and you suggested that, as a leftie, I was more interested in Brenda Martin than in a man who was about to be beheaded - a suggestion you made AFTER I explained why "lefties" were not demanding the government intervene.

It was particularly nasty, and completely unwarranted. And you kept it going even after I pointed out it was a disgusting comment.

Also, I did not say you were stupid. I rather think you are being willfully blind...

Gabby in QC said...

Thanks to commenter Susan Marie here
http://tinyurl.com/2puc8z
I got to this interesting article

http://tinyurl.com/2l5hpp especially this part:
"[Justice Luis Nunez Sandoval] points out that Martin's criminal proceedings have been at a standstill for the past five months because her Canadian lawyer filed an amparo, which is similar to an injunction in Canadian courts, to have her case thrown out on the grounds her human rights were violated when she was arrested and charged. ...

A gambit that didn't work

Martin's amparo was heard in a separate court system by a judge who ruled her human rights were not violated. The failed legal challenge was a gamble that didn't pay off for Martin and ended up costing her five months of waiting time in jail, while all other criminal proceedings against her were put on hold."

Another interesting bit of information:
"A Guide for Canadians Imprisoned Abroad" found here:
http://tinyurl.com/2n495k

"If you break the laws of another country, you are subject to the judicial system of that country. Being a foreigner or not knowing the local laws is not an excuse, any more than it would be in Canada. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada can neither protect you from the consequences of your actions nor override the decisions of local authorities. ...

... under the Privacy Act, personal information may be disclosed in certain circumstances. A few examples include where disclosure would clearly benefit you, where the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of your privacy, ...

The Role of the Government of Canada

A non-Canadian charged with a criminal offence in Canada would be tried under Canadian criminal law in a Canadian court, and, if convicted, sentenced accordingly. Just as Canadians would not accept a foreign government interfering with the Canadian judicial process, the Government of Canada cannot interfere in the judicial affairs of another country.

That being said, the Government of Canada will make every effort to ensure that you receive equitable treatment under the local criminal justice system. It will ensure that you are not penalized for being a foreigner, and that you are neither discriminated against nor denied justice because you are Canadian. It cannot, however, seek preferential treatment for you, or try to exempt you from the due process of local law."

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Good stuff, Gabby. Thanks for that.

I rather doubt that Brenda Martin is being treated worse than anyone else would in a similar situation in Mexico.

Anonymous said...

'Also, I did not say you were stupid. I rather think you are being willfully blind..."

Uhh, I'm pretty sure you did.

"I am not going to say this again - if you cannot understand the difference between the consulate and the elected govenment it is because you are stupid or because you are being willfully blind."

I'm more interested why Martin lied about the governments intervening in her case. In fact, she was contacted by government officials the day after her arrest.

"Martin, the Canadian woman who is imprisoned in Mexico, isn't refuting the contents of the leaked document that says she's had regular contact with Canadian officials. That seems to counter her suggestion that she was initially left to linger in jail without much help from Ottawa."

Alberta Girl said...

Gayle - I did not even begin to suggest that you personally believe that Brenda Martin is more important than the Saudi man. I was speaking in generalities when I said " I guess a jailed woman trumps a man sentenced to beheading. " It goes to the fact that no one is having rallies for him, or collecting funds for him or writing letters for him or (as we will most likely see on Monday) hi-jacking parliment for him. Where is the fairness as I would suggest his plight is much more dire than Brenda's.

You however certainly did insinuate I am either stupid or willfully blind. I can assure you, I am neither. I do know, however there are ALWAYS two sides to every story. We heard Brenda's side loud and clear and now that the other side is coming out, it is not being accepted well by a great many people.

I trust you read Gabby's comment and were able to apply it to this case.

Gayle said...

gabby has not contradicted me, so I am not sure why that is relevant. In fact, all she has done is paraphrase what you have already said.

You are certainly not denying it was the elected government of Canada and not the consulate who intervened with other cases, are you?

Whether or not you think the government should intervene does not change the fact they can, and haven't.

maryT said...

Brenda was given a list of lawyers to chooose from, which she ignored. The Mexican govt said she could have been released in days, but she chose to go another route.
If Gayle has not read that fact, it proves she has not read too much of the story, just the jaded headlines. Could she come back to Canada, has her passport been renewed. As far as donating to her cause, sorry, my money will be used for increased power bill next month, due to using all electric things in my house, outside the house and in the shop to celebrate earth hour.

Gayle said...

"The Mexican govt said she could have been released in days, but she chose to go another route."

link please.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

This link that Gabby provided sure is a fascinating read - Why Brenda Martin is languishing in a Mexican prison.

Anonymous said...

while you're all caught up in an argument of who's insulting you more and who can prove anything, may I remind you ladies that what the gov't is doing is providing proof to the public that what the Liberal braintrust is saying is not accurate.
I don't blame them.
If I were being accused of things I'd want to straighten things out too.

As for Brenda Martin - why is she not being held accountable for the choices she made? Further, why should a government, any government be responsible for that choice.

I think Harper and his gov't have played this all very well so far.

There are just too many unanswered questions on the part of Brenda Martin and her supporters left unanswered that leave me unsympathetic.

Alberta Girl said...

"while you're all caught up in an argument of who's insulting you more and who can prove anything, may I remind you ladies that what the gov't is doing is providing proof to the public that what the Liberal braintrust is saying is not accurate.
I don't blame them."

EXACTLY right, anony...thanks.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hey 'Anony', could you give yourself some kind of pseudonym, like Good Anony or something so we can distinguish you from some of the other Anons? You could still sign in as anonymous, and then just sign your nom de plume at the end of your comment. Thanks. ;)

BTW, what do you guys think about this article in today's Post?

Gayle said...

"may I remind you ladies that what the gov't is doing is providing proof to the public that what the Liberal braintrust is saying is not accurate."

No, they are not. They just know that some of you will be gullible enough to come to that conclusion.

Gayle said...

Read your link Joanne.

This:

"Officials are supposed to meet regularly with the prisoner, provide a list of local lawyers [but not recommend one] and facilitate contact with family and friends. If it suspects that someone's rights are being violated, the consulate can approach local and then regional authorities to improve the situation. Failing that, it attaches notes to the accused's file and flags officials in Ottawa that something is wrong, setting the stage for a diplomatic note, or political intervention."

Is what I have been saying all along. There is only so much the consulate can do and eventually the government has to step in.

And this:

"Mr. McTeague says none of the violations ever resulted in a "note of protest" from Ottawa, an itemized list of legal grievances, which carries more weight than the more vaguely defined "diplomatic note" that Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier says the government sent to Mexico demanding it respect Ms. Martin's rights."

Is what the government should have done.

But not to worry - no doubt your regular readers will take comfort in the "fact" that any media report that shows the Harper government in a negative light is a product of the "left" leaning MSM.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Read your link Joanne.

Gayle, that is rather condescending. I was merely throwing it out there for discussion - not trying to make a point one way or the other.

Gayle said...

"read" your link - as in past tense. As in, I read your link Joanne.

I know you generally link to all stories related to your posts - whether or not they support your point of view.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

As in, I read your link Joanne.

Ah, right. Sorry.

I think what can't be disputed is that the Canadian government 'reads you the riot act' when you leave the country. You are forewarned. The safety net ends at the border. There may be something that can be done if you run into problems in foreign countries, but there is no guarantee.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

Gayle said...

Joanne

People understand there are warnings before you leave Canada, but that does not negate the fact our government can, has, and should intervene in certain situations.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

but that does not negate the fact our government can, has, and should intervene in certain situations.

And exactly what is it that you feel this Government should be doing that it hasn't already, Gayle?

Gayle said...

See above - my quote from the article you linked to.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So you're referring to the 'note of protest'? I have no idea what the political ramifications of that would be.

It would be interesting to know how many times that has been used in the past, what were the circumstances, and what were the results.

Alberta Girl said...

"So you're referring to the 'note of protest'? I have no idea what the political ramifications of that would be."

As I have asked you numerous times before Gayle, and have yet to get an answer, IF SH sent a note of protest or even phoned the president to protest, and still nothing happened, would that settle things in your mind.

How do you know that they have not sent Notes of protest - just because this government doesn;t flaunt every little thing they do in the media doesn;t mean things are not getting done.

I await your answer as to what, in your mind, would be ENOUGH

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Isn't the big rally supposed to be on now? I thought they were expecting a big crowd.

Gayle said...

"How do you know that they have not sent Notes of protest - just because this government doesn;t flaunt every little thing they do in the media doesn;t mean things are not getting done."

And I suppose Harper forgot to tell us he cured cancer too.

Please.

Once they have done all they can do then that will be enough. Deflection by maligning Brenda Martin is certainly not sufficient.

Ruth said...

Off topic, but I would like to ask all the Harper bashers why they haven't congratulated our PM for all the weight he has lost.
Everyone was making fun of him for being overweight, so I guess they don't notice him now when there is nothing to joke about.

Gabby in QC said...

From The Ottawa Citizen article "Don't throw stones at Mexico" Joanne provided a link for:
"Today, for Brenda Martin, tears are enough to send many Canadians into one of their periodic fits of hypocrisy and narrow moralization when there is word that a Canadian has run into legal difficulties in a foreign country."

Now contrast the clamourous outrage of Ms. Martin’s supporters with this other story, about a US citizen (who worked for Alyn Waage too) also in jail in Mexico: http://wweek.com/editorial/3318/8660/ that I got to VIA http://www.vallartascene.com (I tried the link I used yesterday, but today got the message "server not found").

Anyway, here's an excerpt from that editorial:
Justicia Deferred
One Oregon woman's 13-month plight in a Mexican prison.
BY BETH SLOVIC
[March 14th, 2007]
“ … [Rebecca] Roth's family has remained quiet about Roth's incarceration for more than a year, in part because they hoped it would end but also because they feared Mexican authorities would retaliate against Roth.
Roth's mother, Hilda Dimmick, who lives in Athena, Ore., near Pendleton, has already spent $20,000 from her savings on lawyers in Mexico for Roth. But the family's optimism teeters on exasperation these days."

I don't know what has transpired since that editorial was written a year ago. I did read in a US Forum dated Jan. 2008 an appeal to readers to contact their Reps. in Congress to seek a resolution of Ms. Roth’s case.

Add to that “quieter” work the opinion of Gar Pardy, retired from the foreign service in 2003, prior to which he was director general of consular affairs. It appears his op-ed "Don't throw stones at Mexico" was not read by commenter Gayle, she who often asks for links, nor does she appear to have read this other link I provided in a previous comment in this thread: http://tinyurl.com/2n495k where one can find out what the consular offices and the Canadian government can or cannot do, such as this:

“It [the government of Canada] cannot, however, seek preferential treatment for you, or try to exempt you from the due process of local law.”

So, when Dan McTeague makes statements such as this one (from the National Post article referenced by Joanne) "If they had indeed visited her," Mr. McTeague argues, "arrangements should have been made to change her conditions" he is merely politicking.
The government “ … cannot, however, seek preferential treatment for you, or try to exempt you from the due process of local law.” (from “A Guide for Canadians Imprisoned Abroad” link given above)

Of course, unless Ms. Martin’s supporters get exactly the answer they are seeking, and impugning the Conservative government’s role to boot, they will never be satisfied. What’s the saying? "There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Finally, Dan McTeague’s assertion (from the NP article) "The view he [Stockwell Day] has already espoused on clemency will be seen as demeaning," said Mr. McTeague. "They'll be wondering, why demand clemency with us and not Montana?" is a good example of moral absolutism.

How can McTeague equate a self-admitted murderer of two (the Albertan on death row in Montana) who has been given a fair trial in the presence of his peers to Mr. Kohail’s plight, described here: http://tinyurl.com/278lst

“There are differing versions of what happened next.

According to an account in the Arabic newspaper Okaz, a brawl ensued at the school involving 14 young people, with Palestinians facing off against Syrians. “As the physical attack intensified, one of the Palestinians grabbed a Syrian boy named Monther, punched him violently and hit his head against the school yard fence. Monther fell on the ground and died instantly.” The dead youth has since been identified as Munzer Haraki. …

In the current case, the brothers' Saudi lawyer insists that Mr. Kohail, the older brother, has confessed to striking the blows that killed the victim. But cellphone pictures of the brawl apparently show Mr. Kohail being repeatedly struck on the head with a brick.”

Gayle said...

gabby - in order to save you and your friends here some time, I will simply say this:

When any of you actually raise anything new, or actually address my points, I will respond. If you are going to continue to say the same thing while ignoring the facts, you can knock yourselves out.

Cheers

Joanne (True Blue) said...


How can McTeague equate a self-admitted murderer of two (the Albertan on death row in Montana) who has been given a fair trial in the presence of his peers to Mr. Kohail’s plight, described here: http://tinyurl.com/278lst


Excellent point, Gabby. That one had crossed my mind as well. It's like comparing apples to oranges. But I get tired trying to point this stuff out. Thanks for saving me the trouble. Somedays I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.

Also very interesting about the U.S. prisoner and how the family is dealing with the situation.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If you are going to continue to say the same thing while ignoring the facts, you can knock yourselves out.

"Facts". Interesting word. It can be so subjectively applied...

Gayle said...

By the way, here is the link to the story about how Martin could have been freed within a few hours. Shockingly, those of you who assert it was her fault she was not released were wrong.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=eb7ae962-ae04-42ec-b07b-591b5f599b2d&k=53605

Gayle said...

Joanne

I do not care if people do not think the government should be doing more for Martin. I am here to contest the notion the government has done all it can.

If you do not want them to do more it is up to you. I would not come here and try to change anyone's opinion as that would be an exercise in futility. However, you should base that opinion on fact.

The fact is the government can do more, and they are choosing not to.

Your opinion is that is fine with you.

My opinion is I think they should do more.

OK?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Your opinion is that is fine with you.

My opinion is I think they should do more.

OK?


No K.

My opinion is that we may not know all that is going on behind the scenes.

Also, I for one do not know the ramifications of a letter of protest. Would it jeopardize our trading relationship with Mexico? Are we prepared for that?

Is the business community on board?

Gabby in QC said...

"When any of you actually raise anything new, or actually address my points, I will respond."

You reminded me of a very old joke "Just because you have a pointy head doesn't mean you're a star!" ;-)

Anyway ... No need for you to respond, for I already know the spiel. But since you like to ask for links, here's a couple of oldies but goodies:

http://tinyurl.com/yugrh4
«Liberal MP Dan McTeague, a former parliamentary secretary for Canadians abroad, told CTV.ca that Harper's aggressive position could be a diplomatic mistake.

"China is a reality for every Canadian whether we like it or not, but Mr. Harper has decided to take a very narrow, very negative view," he said. ...

The Conservative government has been aggressively lobbying for the release of Huseyin Celil -- held in prison by China for alleged terrorism links.

China does not recognize Celil's Canadian citizenship. His family says he is being persecuted because he is a Muslim.

The Celil issue is just one of a number of irritants in Canada-China relations since the Tories took power in January. Others include the granting of honorary Canadian citizenship to Tibetan exiled leader the Dalai Lama; and accusations by Ottawa that Chinese spies are stealing Canadian trade secrets.»

AND
http://tinyurl.com/2esfy3
«Liberal leadership contender Michael Ignatieff blasted Stephen Harper Thursday, criticizing the prime minister for engaging in "megaphone diplomacy" on his foreign policy stance toward China. …

Ignatieff said the best way for Canada to raise those concerns is to get in a room with the Chinese president and say "here are the files, here are the issues where we have specific disagreements with you; how can we work to get these things resolved?"»

So ... quiet diplomacy, eh? Did you hear that, Mr. McTeague?

Gabby in QC said...

"Somedays I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall."

True, but sometimes we can put a dent in it ... OK, maybe not a dent ... a chink? a pinhole? a cranny?

That's on the wall, not on our heads!

OK, I must go gather up my candles for Earth Hour. Enjoy!

Gayle said...

Sigh....

Joanne

I do not care if you do not agree with me. Really, I don't.

So when you say this:

"Also, I for one do not know the ramifications of a letter of protest. Would it jeopardize our trading relationship with Mexico? Are we prepared for that?'

it is something upon which you base your opinion, which is fair enough.

If you are challenging MY opinion then don't waste your time. You could no more convince me than I could convince you.

If you are going to post inaccuracies, or if others will post them here, I will contest them.

Alberta Girl said...

"When any of you actually raise anything new, or actually address my points, I will respond. If you are going to continue to say the same thing while ignoring the facts, you can knock yourselves out"

I note that you STILL have not answered my question as to what would have to happen to show that the government has done ENOUGH for you.

You can't just say - they have to do more - that is airy-fairy and means nothing.

Give me something concrete that would take place that would, in your mind, be satisfactory evidence that our government has done enough.

And my second question - if that is unable to happen because of the Mexican government, would you still be satisfied.

And when you write

" If you are going to post inaccuracies, or if others will post them here, I will contest them."

I would suggest that it is you that is posting the inaccuracies, Gayle. Your attitude is rather condescending towards those of us that like to look at the whole story rather than just believe those who want to use Brenda Martin for a power trip.

Perhaps you could read Gabby's links about some of the other Canadians that the Tory government has tried to help and the reactions from the Liberals.

What makes Brenda's case so much more special that she deserves so much more than any other Canadian in jail around the world. Because, Gayle, that is what the impression is when rallies are organized by opposition parties, when monies are raised, when articles are written and headlines scream about how horrible the Tory government is for ignoring poor Brenda.

How do you think those other prisioners feel when they see how the Liberals have rallied around Brenda, yet they are in far more dangerous places suffering far more than Brenda is.

If you deign to grace us with your comments again, I would really love to know your answers.

Gayle said...

AG - I have actually answered your questions. Read above. Joanne asked - I answered.

I posted here to contest the accusation that the Harper government has done all it can, and that they have been doing so since the day she was arrested. I have done that, and no one has shown I am wrong. Instead you have changed the subject by raising matters that have nothing to do with Brenda Martin.

As for my opinion, why does it matter to you. I would rather guess it doesn't. I feel no need to justify it to you.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

In a previous post I found this comment:

Brenda's lies re support from our civil servants in Mexico have been exposed. Did she think they would allow her to smear their reputations?
Mr. Waage returned the money Brenda had invested in his company. I have not heard of any other investors getting their money back? Why Brenda? Was she special or in on the scam?
AB


Good questions.

Alberta Girl said...

There are so MANY "good" questions surrounding this whole matter. Unfortunately certain people only want to dwell on whether our government has phoned the president of Mexico without looking at all the facts of the case.

It seems that Brenda and her supporters are protesting way too much - perhaps since she lost her constitutional challenge in Mexico, this is her latest ploy, to get her home country to say her rights were infringed upon and thereby get Mexico to reverse it's decision.

Here is the question that has been niggling me - why would someone who is innocent decide to go the "constitutional challenge" route?

Since Gayle is determined NOT to answer my question - I will give what I suppose her answer would be.

No matter how much the Tory government does to resolve this matter, even if Brenda is brought home, it will NEVER be enough.

Here is another thought - I am wondering if Brenda is sick, all these comments about her dying there, comments from Dr.'s saying she has lost weight in the last year.

The comments that if she dies in prison is will be on SH hands is interesting.

Just some thoughts, which, if true is really unfortunate and I wish her well.

(The above is JUST a theory on my part, - not to be used as fodder for further bashing by lefties!!)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Alberta Girl, thanks for your thoughts here. Yes, certainly everyone is free to express their opinions, questions and speculations here.

For my part, I'm still in a bit of a middle-ground stance on this. It may well be that some of Brenda's rights have been abused, and perhaps the Government could be doing more.

However, I wonder how many other Canadians are in Mexican and other prisons in equal or far worse conditions? Should so much attention be focussed on one person's case because she has a very loud and apparently vindictive advocacy group?

If Brenda manages to hang on until she is back on Canadian soil, will that be the end of it? Will she continue to bad-mouth the government?

Will the media continue to focus on Canadians in foreign prisons with such zeal?

One thing I do feel is necessary though, is for the Canadian public to be informed exactly what the official political overtures are in this kind of situation, and when exactly they are called into play. eg. Diplomatic notes of protest etc.

And what are the potential repercussions of such strategies?

Sorry to be rambling a bit here, but I'm just thinking out loud.

Alberta Girl said...

"Sorry to be rambling a bit here, but I'm just thinking out loud."

Joanne - your rambling is just expressing the thoughts that are in my head as well.

I think that the facts in this case have been glossed over by those who simply want to see dirt thrown at the Harper government - and, to be fair to Brenda's supporters, whatever works.

Unfortunately, if Brenda and her supporters had been truthful from the beginning instead of trying to present only one side there would not be the now obvious lies to jade our thoughts in this matter.

She has probably turned off a great many people AND just as in all the other pseudo scandals of the recent months - it has been soooo overblown and overplayed that Canadians start to tune out.

Your comments about the other Canadians goes to my questions to Gayle - how must these people be feeling given all this attention on Brenda - or is this the first in a long line of foriegn jailed Canadians the Liberals have up their sleeve.

I find it interesting that we elect our MP's to go to Ottawa to govern our country, set policy and laws and for the past two years, it seems we have seen nothing but attempts by the opposition to smear the Tories - which gets in the way of what they are there to do.

I do not predict it will end any time soon as the Liberals are becoming increasingly desperate as they see their chance at regaining power slipping further away.

No matter what the left would believe about our (my) feelings about Brenda Martin, I harbor no ill feelings towards the woman, I truly do wish her well and hope she does get to come home (if she wants to). I do, however, very much disagree with her methods, which I believe were notched up to the next level by the Liberals for nothing else but to show the Harper Tories in a bad light. They are using Brenda Martin and I guess, she is using them so the partnership is mutual.

There are too many unanswered questions in this saga and unfortunately too many of those on the left want to simplify it into a phone call or a "diplomatic note" to correct the situation.

Now I am rambling...up too early, too much coffee!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

She has probably turned off a great many people AND just as in all the other pseudo scandals of the recent months - it has been soooo overblown and overplayed that Canadians start to tune out.

Exactly. Just witness the turnout at the so-called 'rally' yesterday. If there were four dozen, it would be a stretch - and probably half of that was made up of politicians and the media.

Anonymous said...

Gabby from QC is quite the erudite magpie. The stuff he mentionned about Celil had me laughing. He needs to focus on the facts. Celil might not have been transferred to China and therefore no need for the megaphone if only the Conservatives had interceded earlier in Uzbekistan through its Embassy in Washington. McTeague and Szabo pleaded with the hapless cons to do so, but hey opted instead to wait then complain bitterly and loudly. Talk about yelling at a brick wall.

Of course Gabby forgot all of this to make his point about McTeague.
That's fine, but here's the question Gabby - Where's Celil now and who can pick up the phone in Harper's Cabinet to find out?

BTW - on your earlier point about allowing leaks under the Privacy Act when the public interest outweigh's the person's private interest- your stretching the intent of that section to cover the Martin situation. That dog wont hunt and you know it. Foreign Affairs is going to be coughing up some major bucks to Ms. Martin.

Kim

Kim

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Kim, first of all, 'Gabby' is a woman.

Secondly and more importantly, please just stick to attacking the argument - not the person. Failure to do so will result in your comment being deleted. Thanks.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Kim, I see you've left a second, similar comment with a bit more added. Try again without the ad hominems, o.k.?

Gabby in QC said...

"The stuff he mentionned about Celil had me laughing. He needs to focus on the facts."

I came to this comment a little late - but I'll reply anyway.
Keep on laughing, Kim. I hope you enjoy your laughs. But see, all I did was simply QUOTE from an article. That's what these squiggly marks " " with sentences in between mean. And do you know who was being QUOTED in that article? The Honourable Dan McTeague.

I hope you enjoy your reading comprehension classes ... with a wide smile on your happy face.