The Jaffer referendum - Macleans.ca
 

The Jaffer referendum


 

Tim Powers says Rahim Jaffer owes us all an explanation. Adam Radwanski says Jaffer owes us nothing of the kind. And now Vic Toews is quoting William Randolph Hearst. Make what you will of their submissions.

Personally, I’m not terribly interested in any of it, unless, I suppose, you want to get into a discussion of what should and shouldn’t be worth discussing in the House—at which point I would probably argue that yesterday’s hullabaloo didn’t cross the line because the line was long ago spat upon, mocked and ultimately erased by group effort. So there.


 

The Jaffer referendum

  1. "…spat [upon]…"

  2. In reference to the Afghan-Canadian Rendition issue and Vic Toews:

    "Never let the truth get in the way of good Conservative messaging."

    • Tceh……

      You do realize that this all started BEFORE Harper was elected right? You don't believe that the Afghan authorities waited until the Jan 2006 election in Canada and said to themselves, "Hey…the Canadians elected Harper…let's start the torture"

      Because in effect, that's what the Liberals and NDP are saying.

      You'd have to be an idiot to think that….don't you agree?

      • The Liberals have said, repeatedly, that any inquiry should go back as far as 2001/2002.

        • Inquiry into what?
          Handing over detainees caught in Afghanistan to their own Government, a soveriegn nation.

      • Either way, we seem to have little way of knowing because the Conservatives won't release the documents which would tell us one way or another.

        The Liberals likely (ok, almost certainly) were in charge when all this started, but the Conservatives are in government now and so it's their responsibility. Furthermore, without the proper information, we have no way of knowing what happened during each time frame. Complicity in allowing torture might be shared between the Liberals and Conservatives, but right now obstructing the truth is fully at the feet of the Conservatives.

      • My guess based on the actions of the Conservatives is that there isn't much dirt to dig up during the Liberal-Afghan era otherwise Harper would be falling all over himself to release the information uncensored.

        The Conservatives are doing the cover-up, so my sense is they have the most to lose from keeping the Afghan-Rendition documents blacked out.

        • As soon as their 'running-shoes-are-evolving' scientists complete their research into erasing the Liberals' fiscal management record of the 1990s-000s, they'll turn their attention to how to turn all these torture accusations against the natural governing party of Canada.
          Nevermind that the Liberals have said back-date the inquiry to 2001, Harper won't be happy until it only focuses on the period of 2002-05 and Carole Parrish's footwear…

  3. I am just shocked that Mr. Wherry actually voiced an opinion in his second paragraph editorial even if it was a " nothing they do in this House surprises me anymore " kind of statement.

  4. Vic Toews' rant was unneccessary, unhelpful, and makes me wonder if he's looked up the definition of "libel" lately.

    I'm not particularly interested in the "who" of this case, I'm interested in the "how": that is, how a charge of DUI would be unsustainable, if the accused took that breathalyzer and failed, and how a charge of cocaine posession would be unsustainable, if the fellow had cocaine on his person.

    • I disagree, it was particularly helpful in helping to explain the judges role in the case and the options at his disposal. And while we're on the subject of libel do you think that smearing the judge in the case by implying, as Akin and the Free Press reporter did, that he was corrupt because of political debt owing back to the year 2000 is "helpful or neccessary?"

      regarding your concern of how the charges came to be dropped, that is best left for the crown to answer, although I doubt whether many of the posters here would accept anything less than a complete admission of corruption.
      Jaffer is lucky to have gotten the break just as the judge said, but it is not inconceivable that the luck originated in the failure of the officer or his colleagues to protect or gather the evidence. The temptation to jump to the corruption conclusion is best disregarded until the facts are revealed.

      • No one 'smeared' the judge, but noting who appointed him, what his political background is (if any) and other connections isn't considered a disgusting event when the CONs do it — see 'Martin languishes in Mexican prison' and 'Dead soldier's parent a Liberal partisan'…

  5. I blame Lester Pearson.

    • MF: is it okay for anyone to use the Conservative party logo, colours, etc, on their website? I'm thinking I'd like to set one up…I'm quite surprised at his website (and its pathetic attempt to paint him as an entrepreneur).

      • I suspect the logo will be gone in under a week. Hard to believe that the Conservatives would want Rahim to continue to associate himself so closely with the Party, considering their current talkin' points. If he resists, it would be easy pickings for the Cons trademark lawyer.

        If the logo remains, you can draw your own conclusions about the hypocrisy of it all, and yeah slap it on your own website and see what happens.

      • I'm thinking McDonalds and Santa are contacting their legal advisors as we type…

  6. Not that Wherry will point it out,
    but you all do know that the Charter and not Tory connections saved Jaffer, right?

    Read the Toronto Star.

  7. MPS should lay off this in the House of Commons, it's not for them, but newspaper (and other) reporters should find their inner Tabloid paparazzi and shutterbug the guy into hiding for his stupefying hypocrisy.

  8. The liberals didn't make any comments about the possibility of Afghan authroties mistreating their own citizens for the same reasons the Conservatives didn't want to make them public. It gives Canada a black eye, and wrongly assumes Canadian soldiers were complicit in war crimes. You see, at one time, the Liberals were in Government and the reputation of the country mattered to them, as it was a reflection on themselves and their natural grip on power.
    Now that the Conservatives are in power, and have improved the previous agreement, the Liberals are all too willing to slag the forces and insinuate they are guilty of war crimes (ask Ujjal dossanjh)

    The LIberals messed up, the Conservatives tried to fix it. Now, the Liberals are picking over the corpses of Canadian soldiers for their own benefit. That's what Liberals do….and that's what they have done since 1968.