Time for another round of ‘Who has more shamed this country?’


 

Ujjal Dosanjh and Jason Kenney engage in a Twitter fight.

ujjaldosanjhUS advocating for their citizens facing difficulties abroad, Harper’s govt doesn’t always do so.Rather selective .Some Canadians more eaqualabout 3 hours ago from mobile webMinJK@ujjaldosanjh Ujal, pls remind me: which party was in office when Mahar Arar, Zara Kazemi, Omar Khadr, Bill Sampson et al were imprisoned?about 3 hours ago from UberTwitter in reply to ujjaldosanjhujjaldosanjh@MinJK I am right. Respond to what I said.Canada’s stature diminished by Harper foreign policy.about 2 hours ago from mobile web


 

Time for another round of ‘Who has more shamed this country?’

  1. One can only hope that this tweet-exchange is not the by-product of 400,000 (250K for MinJK and 150K for ud) of taxpayers' money. This has got to be their 20-something staffers tweeting away, right?

  2. The next generation of Twitter needs to cut the characters per tweet down to about 15.

    • Excellent suggestion.

      ujjaldosanjh US advocating for
      MinJK@ujjaldosanjh Ujal, pls remi
      ujjaldosanjh@MinJK I am right. Res

      Much better! Less of a time-waster, too.

  3. "I am right." is a tremendous response.

  4. "I am right." is a tremendous response.

  5. Its wierd, but this tweet-off is actually a better debate than what usually happens in QP!

  6. I'm pretty sure Kenney, at least, is making his tweets personally, and I suspect that Dosanjh is too. Hill staffers may tweet links to press releases and generic things like that on their bosses' behalf, but they would be terrified to start a personal, political debate in their boss's name! This, I am confident, is the real deal.
    In any case, Ujjal knows that Tory policy is to advocate for Canadians facing the death penalty in states that have bad records on providing due process and that have shoddy human rights records. Yet Dosanjh, when he says the government is being selective, indirectly equates our ally the United States – with its due process, advanced justice system and which is led by the American equivalent of a Liberal, no less! – to one of these despotic states in Africa or elsewhere.
    It is as if Ujjal believes that a person accused of a crime in the U.S. faces the same hurdles as a person accused of crime in Ehtiopia or some such place. It is not a very complimentary view on Ujjal's part of our neighbour to the south.
    And his "I am right" response, without answering to Kenney's statement of fact, is a typical, entitled, Liberal response to any justified criticism.
    That question that Kenney asked was a great rebuttal. Dosanjh's assertion that 'Canada's stature has been diminished' is subjective and not based on fact and therefore is a hypothetical. But Kenney's response is based in fact and on the Liberals' past record. Yet Ujjal refuses to answer and diverts attention again.
    That's my blow-by-blow analysis of this CPC-Lib online dust-up. I expect not many Liberals who visit here will agree that "I am right."

    • …except that he wasn't comparing US to Africa, he was comparing US to Canada, i.e. the US does more than Canada does to help its citizens who find themselves in trouble overseas

      • Kenney's response is still valid – Canada also did less when Martin or Chretien was PM. In fact Harper has been roundly criticized by the Liberals for bringing up Canadians imprisoned by the Chinese.

        At the end of the day the Tories will fight for Canadian citizens (and others) unless it hinders their continentalist vision of Canada, while the Liberals will fight for Canadians (and others) unless it hinders their internationalist one.

      • The subtext for this entire debate is that Ujjal is saying some Canadians are 'more equal than' others – and that's a not too discreet shot at the fact that Canada recently decided it would not routinely request clemency for our country's convicted murders on death row in the United States (as the Liberals did).
        But Canada will still advocate for those facing the death penalty in countries where the justice systems are not so transparent. So Ujjal is saying we're not being fair.
        But the reasoning, as I understand it, is that the courts in the U.S. are advanced enough to provide an accused his proper due process, whereas those in some of these other countries are not so advanced, and advocacy may still be required – such as in the case this week where a Canadian facing the death penalty on terrorism-related charges in Ethiopia received a life sentence instead, after the Canadian government sought assurances from the Ethiopian government that he would not be sentenced to death.
        Whether that policy is right or wrong depends on your viewpoint. But, as I say, I believe that's the subtext of this debate between these two politicians.

        • "But the reasoning, as I understand it, is that the courts in the U.S. are advanced enough to provide an accused his proper due process, whereas those in some of these other countries are not so advanced, and advocacy may still be required "

          I'm not sure that I would refer to a system that still allows a government to kill its own citizens as "advanced." The fact of the matter is that we Canadians do not believe in the death penalty and torture and, as such, this govt should be advocating on behalf of its citizens to countries who still engage in these barbaric practices. The US still administers the death penalty and, as we recently found out, engages in torture.

          As far as I am concerned, that puts them on equal footing with Ethiopia.

          • You're kind of ignoring the fact that these citizens the U.S. kills are citizens who have first killed others.

            These are not people being picked up off the streets by government agents in black vans and being indiscriminately dispatched. They are killers of innocents, and the state has an obligation to protect society from them. In the U.S., some states have opted for a more permanent solution than we have in Canada, where we like to churn violent offenders back out onto our streets the first time they come up for parole so that they can kill innocent people again – all in the name of, and the high hopes for, rehabilitation.

            If our citizens don't like the possible penalty they could receive for commiting murder in the United States, then they probably shouldn't be going down there and to kill people in the first place.

    • No Kenney's response was off topic and stupid. Yes, the Liberals were in government during Maher Arar, for example. But while the Liberal government was trying to find out what was going on and get Arar home, here's what Kenney's party was saying about Arar:

      Harper, in QP, Nov 2002: While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.

      And Diane Ablonczy, QP, Nov 02: Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.

      How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?
      ..
      Mr. Speaker, the government needs to take responsibility for what it is doing to protect Canadian security. The fact is that these Liberals were asleep at the switch. Arar was not properly checked. Instead, the government ran around chastising the U.S. for sending Arar back to Syria, where he is also a citizen. Why is it that the Liberal security system is so weak here that they overlook vital information that the U.S. picked up on a routine check?

      Yes, that's right. While the Liberal government was trying to get to the bottom of this and get Arar home, Kenney's party was chastising us for trying to help Arar, dismissing him as an terrorist we shouldn't be helping.

      And now these same guys are setting Canada's foreign and immigration policy, and they're deciding which Canadian citizens deserve the help of their government, and which are just "terrorists" that should be left to rot.

      So, yeah, great point by Jason Kenney.

    • No Kenney's response was off topic and stupid. Yes, the Liberals were in government during Maher Arar, for example. But while the Liberal government was trying to find out what was going on and get Arar home, here's what Kenney's party was saying about Arar:

      Harper, in QP, Nov 2002: While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.

      And Diane Ablonczy, QP, Nov 02: Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.

      How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?
      ..
      Mr. Speaker, the government needs to take responsibility for what it is doing to protect Canadian security. The fact is that these Liberals were asleep at the switch. Arar was not properly checked. Instead, the government ran around chastising the U.S. for sending Arar back to Syria, where he is also a citizen. Why is it that the Liberal security system is so weak here that they overlook vital information that the U.S. picked up on a routine check?

      Yes, that's right. While the Liberal government was trying to get to the bottom of this and get Arar home, Kenney's party was chastising us for trying to help Arar, dismissing him as an terrorist we shouldn't be helping.

      And now these same guys are setting Canada's foreign and immigration policy, and they're deciding which Canadian citizens deserve the help of their government, and which are just "terrorists" that should be left to rot.

      So, yeah, great point by Jason Kenney.

      • Well, at the time he was a 'suspected' terrorist, as Harper said in your nice lift from Hansard, and he did have 'terrorist links' in some official eyes at the time. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been under suspicion of terrorism, right? So I'm not really seeing the smoking gun you are providing here, unless you are trying to prove that hind-sight is 20-20. In that case, you have very sharp eyes.
        The fact is, the ultimate responsibility for the problems of the day lie with the government of the day that had the power to do something about it, not with the opposition members.
        Liberals certainly don't give Harper any wriggle room or allowances for the obstruction he faces from the opposition now that he is in power. So I am not sure why you are willing to give the Liberals of 2002 a free pass for their decisions on Arar, just because the Official Opposition did its job and provided some, well, opposition.
        Simple fact: The Arar thingee happened on the Liberals' watch, and the Conservative government later had to clean up their mess. No sleight-of-hand changes that record.

    • So long as the United States has the death penalty, it lacks an "advanced justice system."

      While to the conbot hordes that might seem like a heinously uncomplimentary view of our neighbour to the south, it has the unfortunate distinction of being true. And if they don't like "typical, entitled" Liberals telling them that, then they could at least familiarize themselves with the growing body of constitutional caselaw on the subject. (Of course, they'd then say such things are written by "typical, entitled" Liberals.)

      • “It's disgusting in my own country, and I love my country, Canada, but they would rather bitch about their rich neighbour to the south…"

        – Iggy lecturing Canadians in 2005

        "Tom A, quit your bitching."

        -Iggy to Liberal partisans who disgust him.

  7. Ujjal doesn't seem like a very skilled thumb-typist.

  8. Hilarious. Loved Dosanjh's rebuttal. "I am right. Therefore, it follows that…you're wrong. QED" Brilliant.

    Perhaps we could do all our Parliamentary business via Twitter.
    "PMHarper: i wntz no elekshun k."
    "MicIgnat @ PMHarper: ura luzr"
    "PMHarper @ MicIgnat: ur mor luzr"
    "MicIgnat @ PMHarper: get lost plz k thnx"

  9. Hilarious. Loved Dosanjh's rebuttal. "I am right. Therefore, it follows that…you're wrong. QED" Brilliant.

    Perhaps we could do all our Parliamentary business via Twitter:

    <font color="blue">PMHarper</font>: i wntz no elekshun k.
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: ura luzr
    PMHarper @ MicIgnat: ur mor luzr
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: get lost plz k thnx

  10. Hilarious. Loved Dosanjh's rebuttal. "I am right. Therefore, it follows that…you're wrong. QED" Brilliant.

    Perhaps we could do all our Parliamentary business via Twitter:

    PMHarper: i wntz no elekshun k.
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: ura luzr
    PMHarper @ MicIgnat: ur mor luzr
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: get lost plz k thnx

  11. Hilarious. Loved Dosanjh's rebuttal. "I am right. Therefore, it follows that…you're wrong. QED" Brilliant.

    Perhaps we could do all our Parliamentary business via Twitter:

    PMHarper: i wntz no elekshun k
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: ura luzr
    PMHarper @ MicIgnat: ur mor luzr
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: get lost plz k thnx

  12. Hilarious. Loved Dosanjh's rebuttal. "I am right. Therefore, it follows that…you're wrong. QED" Brilliant.

    Perhaps we could do all our Parliamentary business via Twitter:

    PMHarper: i wntz no elekshun k
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: ura luzr
    PMHarper @ MicIgnat: ur mor luzr
    MicIgnat @ PMHarper: get lost plz k thnx

    • I just got a tweet from Jack Layton in response to the PMHarper and MicIgnat twitter convo:
      LaytonPM: omg just read PMHarper & MicIgnat. im so lol ;) luzrs

      • EMay: stop txtng al u lzrs dont u no how much c02z emitd by blakbry factreez

  13. just more evidence of an ever dwindling relevance of ottawa to regular folks. doesn't matter who governs this place. result is the same in the end. wonder what happens next.

  14. Twitter Suck. Debate Dumb Down. Why I Don't Do.

  15. When you stop and think of celebrities, or in this case politicians bickering via Twitter for the world too see it is pretty remarkable just how asinine the whole thing is.

  16. sweet. i haven't hear the official use of Libs did it first in way toooooo long.

  17. And here, in my office, you can hear the sad sigh of a communications staffer…

  18. Still way too manu bits and bytes =
    Usanj = hrpr suks
    JK- igesukswurs

  19. interesting that (the Conservative's future leader) Kenney didn't answer the question. Not that we should be surprised, he doesn't in Question Period either. I don't get it— if this guy is so bright, why doesn't he occasionally so it with a substantive answer to a direct question instead of always attempting to change the channel with a partisan (and pointless) jab?

    Why do they always resort to the "Liberals did it too" response? Surely Kenny is capable of articulating Harper's foreign policy approach and respond with it?

  20. I take it that you have never actually listened or read the question or should I say accusation! as no question has been asked instead an accusation was proposed. maybe now I could be just flying one out there so to speak but maybe if a just a question was asked then what would be reiieved would be just an answer : by the way have you stopped beating your wife?

  21. LOL.

  22. sigh… I'll regret this I am sure but…

    I see Dosanjh saying that under Harper, Canada has a foreign policy where Canadians accused of serious crimes abroad are treated on an individual basis. Kenney doesn't address that, instead brings up some very different cases in the same example (William Sampson and Omar Khadr?).
    My point is this: if Canadian foreign policy has changed, why doesn't Kenney address that, hey, try to explain and maybe sell us on it? But instead he once again goes partisan instead of substantive.