The past few days in things that are somewhat more consequential - Macleans.ca
 

The past few days in things that are somewhat more consequential


 

Gen. Walter Natynczyk has written to the special committee on Afghanistan to outline the military’s account of one of the events referenced last week by Malgarai Ahmadshah.

Meanwhile, the Hill Times reports that the Speaker is set to rule this week on the question of privilege raised by opposition members in regards to the House demand that the government produce all documents related to Afghan detainees.

And the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission reports that Canada turned over 163 prisoners last year—a figure the Canadian government has not released on the grounds of operational security.


 

The past few days in things that are somewhat more consequential

  1. Thanks for this, Wherry – I'd like to think you've switched on to more substantive stuff because of the comments in the boards, but I know in my heart of hearts it's because you really DO have more important stuff that you'd like to cover than the Jafferwocky.

    • Jafferwocky! LMAO!

    • I think we have a winner in the nickname sweepstakes.

      • I can't take full credit, I saw this somewhere else first.

  2. It is interesting though that something as important as Parliamentary supremacy is getting so little interest in the media. This issue should be HUGE. It effects us all. But I get it, it doesn't sell papers. I think that says something pretty sad about the viewing public. Good on you Wherry (and a few other diligent reporter, like she that we miss so much!) for keeping on the subject!

    What a geek I am that the speaker's ruling gets me so excited. I have never watched so much CPAC in my life!

  3. Thanks for giving us a general update Wherry on when the speaker will FINALLY rule on the question of privelege. Let's hope he's got the fortitude to do the right thing.

  4. "the Speaker is set to rule this week on the question of privilege raised by opposition members in regards to the House demand that the government produce all documents related to Afghan detainees."

    Canadians don't care about this. They want to hear about [Insert whatever the Opposition is not talking about here].

    • I suspect we'd all care plenty if the issue were framed in terms that Canadians can understand. Phrased as it was, the privilege motion seemed a primarily procedural matter, something dry and arcane that most Canadians won't follow.

      Reframed as an issue of whether or not the current ruling party respects that they are in a minority situation, and regardless, must respect the will of Parliament, results may be different.

      • "I suspect we'd all care plenty if the issue were framed in terms that Canadians can understand."

        If only there were a class of people, people who are accorded special privileges, an estate of some sort, paid to do just that…

  5. Aaron, you were far less vague in pointing out the accusations from the Afghan-Canadian interpreter. You splashed them on the front page of your blog and called them "explosive".

    Natynczyk flat out denied this guy's allegation in detailed fashion. Given that you splashed the accusations on the front of your blog using such language, surely it's not too much to ask to put at least the highlights of Natynczyk's rebuttal on your front page as well, and not underplay it as a simple letter to the committee and put only a hyperlink to it?

    • "Natynczyk flat out denied this guy's allegation in detailed fashion."

      Imagine that.

      • So you are OK with shouting allegations from some random translator from the rooftops, but burying the rebuttal from our chief of defense staff.

        Imagine that.

        • Not to diminish the deft put-down from Blues Clair….
          Well, I'd say the credible-sounding* accusations from a former translator are more newsworthy than a routine denial from a CYA military apparatchik

          *credible, given all the other sad news emerging from this clusterf**k .

        • If any other readers are having trouble finding the buried rebuttal of Gen. Walter Natynczyk, I can help… it's the first paragraph of this post.

  6. There was an expression during the Chretien years that the Liberal support was a mile wide but an inch deep. In other words….not much substance there, very little principle.
    After watching Liberals ask their first 8 questions today in Question Period about Helena Guergis and her husband it is safe to assume nothing has changed. Rather then engage the gov`t in discussions about issues that really concern Canadians, Liberals take the easy way out and try to secure a few votes by having the new face of their Party ( Wayne Easter ) repeat silly gossip about a former junior minister and her husband.
    What a stupid strategy ! Liberal supporters must be ashamed.

    • And what, precisely, does the Liberals' inability to ask decent questions in Parliament have to do with Wherry's post?

      For that matter, what does it have to do with the principles of Liberal voters? I don't get to call Conservative voters unprincipled just because the party they voted for flips on all sorts of issues from budgetary constraint to the national anthem.

      • Sorry–I did not mean to suggest that Liberal voters are unprincipled. The " mile wide–inch thick " reference has to do with the fact that there was not a lot of people who voted Liberal in the Chretien years because of some great vision within the leadership of the Party.
        The Liberal supporters I know are good and decent people but their reasons for voting Liberal seem to go from some ancestorial pressure, to the illusion that it was the Liberals in power that made Immigration possible, to the fact that they just don`t like Harper and don`t trust the Dippers.
        I think if I was a Liberal supporter I would be disgusted by the continued attempt to find any issue whether it be a seasonal flu or the actions of a junior minister`s husband as an excuse to try to score cheap points on the gov`t.
        Jeez…..even the NDP are backing off this circus around Guergis.

        • "The Liberal supporters I know are good and decent people but their reasons for voting Liberal…"

          1) I'm gonna hazard a guess that the Liberal supporters you know are not a statistically significant sample.

          2) It's pretty rich of any voter to pass judgement on other voters' reasons for voting the way you do.

          3) I'm pretty sure a study of Conservative voters would find a similarly incoherent mess of motivations for voting Conservative.

          • 1) Actually, I know more Liberal supporters than Conservative and frequently engage them in conversation (carefully ) and find out
            2) why they vote the way they do
            3) I would argue that many CPC supporters, because of the fact that many tend to be former Reform grassroots supporters, tend to vote because of a certain belief in what they want in gov`t rather then the reasons mentioned earlier for Liberal voters.

          • That whistling sound you heard was all three of my points flying over your head. I'll try again:

            1) You do not know a statistically significant number of Liberal voters.

            2) Voting preferences are intensely personal. You (unless you're some sort of god) are not qualified to judge the voting preferences of your fellow citizens.

            3) Conservative voters display plenty of ill-informed or frivolous reasons for voting the way they do, so it doesn't make sense to label Liberal voters as particularly ill-informed or frivolous.

            There. Did you understand that time?

          • And you sir seemed to have mastered the art of quoting what I said without actually reading what I wrote. Your quote included the words " the Liberal supporters I know ". From those words you are to assume that I did not carry out a scientific survey which seems to be what you imply.

            If you want scientific polling data, go elsewhere. Much like you all I have to offer is my own opinion.
            Having said that I believe an accurate survey of reasons why people vote the way they do would reflect my opinion on that matter.

          • "The Liberal supporters I know…" is a meaningless population. Which was my point, that you're trying to draw conclusions about *all* Liberal supporters from the *ones you know*.

            "If you want scientific polling data, go elsewhere…" "…I believe an accurate survey of reasons why people vote the way they do would reflect my opinion on that matter."

            First: you're reinforcing stereotypes of conservative voters, specifically that they do not understand data but are happy to invent/assume/imagine data that supports their hypothesis.

            Second: you're ignoring my third point, which is that Conservative voters may be motivated by frivolous or ill-informed purposes too.

          • And now you`re just playing with words……nothing here for me.

    • "Issues that really concern Canadians"

      I'm sorry but it is like beating a dead horse. There are no "issues that really concern a majority of Canadians", and there is no point in generalizing that there are. We have a penchant for maintaining the status quo in government.

      The only time we change the government, is when they go over the 'tipping point' in offending our sense of the general honesty of the government. Heck, we will tolerate a certain level of shenanigans, but at some point enough is enough.

      This is why the opposition focuses on scandal, malfeasance, or ineptness. From a policy standpoint there isn't much difference in governance between the two main parties. Recent history holds that the opposition never wins an election; an inept, tired, bumbling, arrogant government loses it.

      • I would agree, to a point; it`s just that someone should tell the Liberal brass that they should keep their powder dry until there is a real scandal. These high-pitched squeals of Easter, Bennett, and Dosanjh about seasonal flu, Afghan detainees, and a junior minister`s personal life are just turning people off.
        If and when a real reason to protest arrives we`ll probably just tune out like we did all those other times.

        • "someone should tell the Liberal brass that they should keep their powder dry until there is a real scandal. "

          Thanks, your advice on which scandals are "real" and which are not have been duly noted and appropriately discarded.

          You should look up the definition of "concern trolling."

          • So how`s the advice you guys have been receiving working out for you ?
            You may want to look up the definition of Headinthesanditis.

    • the desperate plea to change-the-channel appears yet again
      funny this is the same line they roll out when we talk about the detainee issue, abortion, womens' rights, climate change, etc , etc

      I guess we are supposed to talk about crime (lefties being so good at it and all), the wonderful ACTION PLAN or perhaps the hockey book?

      • "I guess we are supposed to talk about crime (lefties being so good at it and all), the wonderful ACTION PLAN or perhaps the hockey book?"

        We're not supposed to talk at all.

    • Lament the systemic politicization and neutering of our institutions, not just the decline of the Liberal party…