Mary Dawson, the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, has ruled that those big ceremonial government cheques Conservatives were handing out covered in their party logos and personal signatures were over the line. Really?
Ethics watchdog scolds Tories for 'partisan identifiers' on ceremonial cheques
Of course, aside from making the ruling, there are no consequences to this ethical breech.
I'm sure the Conservatives, being THE law 'n order party, will be jumping up and down demanding the commissioner be given powers with teeth...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Milliken: Parliament has the power to force government produce documents
Just this in from Kady's live blogging:
Fingers crossed...
And the result is... two more weeks for Parliament to come up with a plan that deals with security concerns while still allowing for the unredacted documents to be viewed.
And, says Milliken, this is a Matter of Privilege, so if the government refuses to play ball, there's going to be trouble.
So far, our stumbling parliamentary democracy appears to still be intact.
My fear? Harper is preparing to lawyer up, and frag this through our courts.
"In light of these various arguments," Milliken notes, the House does, indeed, have the right to order the documents in question, as it did in December. Got that, everyone? Now, the question is whether it would be a breach of privilege to refuse to comply. Oh wow, that last line just got a round of applause from the opposition benches. On the other side? Silence. Kind of unsettling silence.
Fingers crossed...
And the result is... two more weeks for Parliament to come up with a plan that deals with security concerns while still allowing for the unredacted documents to be viewed.
And, says Milliken, this is a Matter of Privilege, so if the government refuses to play ball, there's going to be trouble.
So far, our stumbling parliamentary democracy appears to still be intact.
My fear? Harper is preparing to lawyer up, and frag this through our courts.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Conservatives introduce 'coerced abortion' bill
A true private member's bill, or not, they now own it.
Rod Bruinooge, chair of the all-party pro-life caucus in Parliament, wants it to be a crime to coerce a woman to have an abortion.
Apparently, however, the Conservatives don't want it to be a crime to coerce a woman to not have one.
And... the abortion debate seems to be back on the table, eh?
Rod Bruinooge, chair of the all-party pro-life caucus in Parliament, wants it to be a crime to coerce a woman to have an abortion.
Apparently, however, the Conservatives don't want it to be a crime to coerce a woman to not have one.
And... the abortion debate seems to be back on the table, eh?
Guergis makes me snore
The whole Jaffer/Guergis affair is simply a tale of incompetence and indiscretion. How boring.
Unless a photo surfaces of Guergis snorting coke off of some stripper's belly, this is all officially boring.
It's fine that this "power couple" is going down in flames. We deserve better in Parliament.
Oh, in other related news, apparently the OPP kept Jaffer from receiving a phone call from his lawyer, and a strip search was done despite the fact he was to be ROR, in which case it is not proper practice to do such an invasive search. So the Crown was likely right to cut a deal.
Of course, had the Crown let us know this up front, some of us wouldn't have spent so much time wondering if the Crown was compromised, either politically or intellectually.
Unless a photo surfaces of Guergis snorting coke off of some stripper's belly, this is all officially boring.
It's fine that this "power couple" is going down in flames. We deserve better in Parliament.
Oh, in other related news, apparently the OPP kept Jaffer from receiving a phone call from his lawyer, and a strip search was done despite the fact he was to be ROR, in which case it is not proper practice to do such an invasive search. So the Crown was likely right to cut a deal.
Of course, had the Crown let us know this up front, some of us wouldn't have spent so much time wondering if the Crown was compromised, either politically or intellectually.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Supreme Court to hear link libel case
Wayne Crookes appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada will be heard.
This is the P2PNet case, which Crookes is suing over hyperlinks to material he claims to be libelous.
The BC Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that hyperlinks, unless expressively recommended, are not to be seen to be disseminating libel, and are comparable to footnotes, which are viewed in law as references, not dissemination. Crookes has maintained the latter.
If hyperlinks are viewed to always be disseminating what lies beneath, then it will become very easy for libel claims to perpetuate across the Internet, creating a considerable chill. Such a ruling would create huge liability concerns for aggregators such as Progressive Bloggers, and anyone keeping any form of blogroll.
Arguments by Crookes have included the reasoning that it should be sufficient to link to a domain, not directly to the alleged libelous material, for dissemination to be argued. The reasoning is, it is similar to me handing you a book containing libel on a page, but not indicating which page, or whether there is any in there at all. In such a case, current law says I can still be held responsible for disseminating libel.
None of the claims of libel have been proven yet in court. I am a named defendant in another libel case brought by Crookes.
Not an April Fools Joke. Damn.
====
Update:
Canadian Press has this story with the hed:
Supreme Court to hear case of libellous links
Sloppy journalism. Since he started these up in 2005, Crookes has yet to have anything found to be libelous by any court. That should read "alleged libellous links."
This is the P2PNet case, which Crookes is suing over hyperlinks to material he claims to be libelous.
The BC Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that hyperlinks, unless expressively recommended, are not to be seen to be disseminating libel, and are comparable to footnotes, which are viewed in law as references, not dissemination. Crookes has maintained the latter.
If hyperlinks are viewed to always be disseminating what lies beneath, then it will become very easy for libel claims to perpetuate across the Internet, creating a considerable chill. Such a ruling would create huge liability concerns for aggregators such as Progressive Bloggers, and anyone keeping any form of blogroll.
Arguments by Crookes have included the reasoning that it should be sufficient to link to a domain, not directly to the alleged libelous material, for dissemination to be argued. The reasoning is, it is similar to me handing you a book containing libel on a page, but not indicating which page, or whether there is any in there at all. In such a case, current law says I can still be held responsible for disseminating libel.
None of the claims of libel have been proven yet in court. I am a named defendant in another libel case brought by Crookes.
Not an April Fools Joke. Damn.
====
Update:
Canadian Press has this story with the hed:
Supreme Court to hear case of libellous links
Sloppy journalism. Since he started these up in 2005, Crookes has yet to have anything found to be libelous by any court. That should read "alleged libellous links."
I feel like I just woke up!
You may have noticed that I am barely blogging lately. Truth is, I can't be bothered.
After winning a share of the 6/49 lottery, I've found myself increasingly uninterested with the progressive blogosphere. Frankly, you mostly come across as a bunch of whiners who expect everything to be made perfect.
Wake up! There isn't any difference between Harper and Iggy worth mentioning, and the NDP are pointless. This country is becoming more balkanized and politicized, the Federal government waning in its power. The dollar is rising due to money trader speculation (where's Jesus' money-monger table kicking when you need it?), crumbling Ontario's manufacturing sector. Our government ignores Parliament, and most of us. Ontario continues to leach Toronto dry while failing meet promised funding for transit projects badly needed by our worst-in-the-world gridlock.
I'm fed up. I'm moving back to my birthplace of Montreal. I hope the province separates.
At least Gilles Duceppe stands for something.
If it doesn't, I have relatives in Nova Scotia, and political contacts there working on a separatist party there pushing for a formal and separate trade relationship with bordering US states. I'll move there.
Screw you all!
After winning a share of the 6/49 lottery, I've found myself increasingly uninterested with the progressive blogosphere. Frankly, you mostly come across as a bunch of whiners who expect everything to be made perfect.
Wake up! There isn't any difference between Harper and Iggy worth mentioning, and the NDP are pointless. This country is becoming more balkanized and politicized, the Federal government waning in its power. The dollar is rising due to money trader speculation (where's Jesus' money-monger table kicking when you need it?), crumbling Ontario's manufacturing sector. Our government ignores Parliament, and most of us. Ontario continues to leach Toronto dry while failing meet promised funding for transit projects badly needed by our worst-in-the-world gridlock.
I'm fed up. I'm moving back to my birthplace of Montreal. I hope the province separates.
At least Gilles Duceppe stands for something.
If it doesn't, I have relatives in Nova Scotia, and political contacts there working on a separatist party there pushing for a formal and separate trade relationship with bordering US states. I'll move there.
Screw you all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)