Congrats, Justin.

According to Kady O', it was a solid win as well with Trudeau keeping Brazeau against the ropes a fair bit, and Brazeau looking pretty exhausted.

Nice.

I always felt what Den Tandt wrote today, that Trudeau comes out a winner regardless of the outcome of the match.  It was his idea, his invite, and he has been gracious and light hearted from the start, while brazeau was doing a great deal of bragging, sure he'd win, and boasted about how he planned to knock Trudeau out.

It'll be nice not having every other CON MP in the House engaging in boasts over the match as well.

Brazeau is a shameless apple, a disgrace as a senator, a self-centered, egotistical slimeoid, and a loud-mouthed braggart, so this looks good on him.

I am looking forward to seeing his "haircut of shame."

Back to more serious blogging tomorrow, hopefully!

Not just a Crime Minister, but a dumb Crime Minister

If you’re going to set someone up to take the fall for your crime, you should choose a source not obviously connected to you to present the fabrication. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Sona has told former co-workers he learned from the Sun News Network that he was being fingered by Conservative sources in connection with the phony calls. Friends say the ex-aide was sitting in his office in late February when Sun News broke a story that Tories had tied him to “a robo-calling scandal.”   The Sun News Network was the first media outlet to link Mr. Sona to the controversy. 

Anonymous Conservatives have repeatedly fingered Michael Sona, singling out him alone among a group of workers on the campaign of Guelph candidate Matty Burke, but a source says Sona had no reason to believe Elections Canada was interested in him until he was named by unidentified senior Tories in a report on Sun News Network the day the story broke.

 ...Sona wasn’t even a person of interest to Elections Canada until he was cited in media reports, according to the source. Al Mathews, the former RCMP inspector leading the probe, did not speak to Sona until after the 23-year-old left Adams’ office.

...As recently as Monday night, Conservative sources were pushing Sona in connection to the Guelph robocalls. A CTV News report cited unnamed Conservatives saying Sona had owned up to the calls amid reports that the investigation had traced an Internet Protocol address used by “Poutine” to a home in Guelph, Ontario.

You should make your scapegoat someone who has the abilities needed to commit your crime.

A source close the investigation said Tuesday that it seems unlikely that a 23-year-old, acting alone, would have been able to pull off the fairly complicated “Pierre Poutine” caper, recording a bilingual, legitimate-sounding message purportedly from Elections Canada, setting up a screen of two false identities using a prepaid cellphone and credit card, and expertly covering his electronic tracks.

And you should make sure that the poor schmuck you are setting up had opportunity to commit your vile crime -

The Conservatives keep track of supporters and other voters through a massive database called the constituency information management system (CIMS), which was created and expanded under Stephen Harper’s leadership of the party. Access to CIMS is controlled through personal accounts with passwords. One person familiar with the local Guelph campaign estimated that perhaps 10 to 15 people working there had personal CIMS accounts. “Everything is logged,” a Conservative source said. 

Someone familiar with the investigation said that CIMS records indicate Michael Sona, then-communications director to candidate Marty Burke, never used his CIMS account to draw down lists of voters during the campaign. 

Scum Sun Media and CTV News should be forced to reveal the names of the “unidentified senior Tories” who pointed their fingers at Sona.  

Toews cries and threatens a guy who legally tweeted truths about Mr. Family Values and is forcing him to go before a committee.  “Senior Tories” make up lies about a guy that put his life in a downward spiral, Sun Media pushes the lies, and they get paid.

Better go to confession, Julian

Seeing as to how Fantino is failing in his holy anddecent mission to equip the armed forces…

In  November 2011, I wrote "watch for the cancellation or shelving of the F-35 as harper now blames the Liberals" for opening the competition."

Wow.  The gung-ho war on  everything take no prisoners use support the troops party of steve is in “retreat?”  It is “publicly backtracking?”  

Thomas Walkom says in his article that this flimsy acknowledgement by Fantino that the crusade for the F-35 may not take the field is harper admitting he was wrong.  I think not.  The Crime Minister will never admit he was wrong.  Never.  He will continue to blame the Liberals.  That’s a no-brainer.

Still, it makes me enjoy a wicked thought.  The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc could just toss back steve’s vile speaking points at the CONs rather than write their own, but they won’t, and in reality I am glad for that. 

But let us indulge in a bit of fiendish fun:

“Our experts have put out their detailed figures and everything we've seen is within those figures and their contingencies — the contingencies that have been allowed," Harper said. (April 26, 2011)

"A lot of the developmental costs you're reading in the United States, the contract we've signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs. We're very confident of our cost estimates and we have built in some latitude, some contingency in any case. So we are very confident we are within those measures." (harper, April 8, 2011)

My favorite:

“We will purchase the F-35,” Fantino asserted. “We’re on record. We’re part of the crusade. We’re not backing down.” (November 2011)

And (note the date!)–

"Canada has set a budget for replacement aircraft and we have been clear that we will operate within that budget," Fantino said in a statement. (March 2, 2012)

Baird must now acknowledge that the harper party doesn’t support the troops -

 “…there is nodenying that the new jet fighters that our air force so desperately needs to replace the CF-18s, which will be 40 years old, will have a price…“Let me say this,” Mr. Baird went on, warming up now. “The men and women in the Canadian armed forces are prepared to pay the ultimate price. They are prepared to sacrifice. They are brave. What do they count on? They count on the government to provide them with the tools they need. If that means it is going to be $50 a year or $1 a week to provide for Canadian sovereignty and to give our men and women the tools they need to do the job, it is a price that we are prepared to pay.” (March 10, 2011)

Not so much today, eh, Baird?

We musn’t leave out Airshow:

“We have been clear that we will operate within that budget,” (MacKay) said in a speech to the Conference of Defence Associations annual meeting. “And we will give our air men and women the best available aircraft, which I believe is the fifth-generation, F-35 Lightning II.” (February 4, 2012)

Right, Pete.  Run and get DND to dig up some way to further blame the Liberals for your failure to give the beloved troops “the best available aircraft.”

And a few photos for our pleasure - 

Fetuses as human beings, the long gun registry, and Dear Leader

In April, MP Woodworth will ask  “Parliament to create a committee of politicians whose task it will be to review a law that stops short of defining unborn children as "human beings."  A committee of MPs has agreed to give Woodworth at least one hour of debate sometime in April. He will receive a second hour of debate sometime either in late spring or early fall.”

Why would harper allow this? A few reasons:

1.  Two of the biggest fund raisers for the CONs have been killing off the big, bad long gun registry and the equally vile and dangerous CBC.  With the registry gone and massive cuts in the works for CBC, the CON base has to be re-injected with CON-rabies or some virus that similarly keeps them mindlessly frothing at the mouth.  It also needs to make people want to donate money.  Promises of removing women’s right to control their own reproductive choices and their own bodies will do both.

 

2.  Stop the erosion of their base: Bill C-30 angered even some hard core CONs.  Many are very involved in social media and understand how that spy Bill would endanger their online freedom.  OAS reforms suggested by the CONs hits one of the right’s core group of supporters – older Canadians.  Show them another shiny object, the kind they easily get worked up over, and send signals that the CONs really do intend to regulate women’s wombs.

3.  Any big topic (and abortion debate always draws big crowds) is welcomed by harper right now because it takes away from discourse surrounding the very serious allegations of criminal activities committed by his party during the last (and possibly earlier) elections.

Before anyone thinks I’m being extreme in what I write below, I am not getting into the “what ifs” such as contraceptives except as they could be affected directly by such a re-definition of a human being.

If a fetus is defined as a human being, then it is entitled to the same rights.  That means if a fetus dies, there will have to be an investigation to determine cause of death.  

Let’s look at what defining a fetus as a human being means:

1.   Anyone deliberately causing the termination of the fetus would be guilty of murder including those who aided or enabled the termination.  Anyone trying to cover it up after the fact could also be charged.  

Many anti-choicers think this is a good idea, but read on – 

2.  Anyone causing the termination of a pregnancy could be charged with a range of crimes from neglect leading to death or manslaughter.  

Now listen up, you anti-choicers.  Even you men:

If a pregnant woman miscarries, the termination would have to be treated as the death of a human being and as such would have to be investigated.  A cause of death would have to be determined.  Many people are saying this will set women up for charges of manslaughter if they didn’t maintain perfect health and care throughout the pregnancy.  Yes, we already see that happening in the States.  Did the woman drink alcohol or take in any possibly harmful substances?  Did she eat a healthy diet, get enough rest, enough exercise? Did she take measures to reduce stress, to control her weight in a healthy way?  Did she do everything she possibly could to avoid harm to the fetus?  Ignorance is no excuse because it is her responsibility to protect the fetus just as it is her responsibility to protect a child.

But not every unintentional death is the result of the woman's behaviour.  Did hubby provide healthy food throughout the pregnancy?  Did he intercede if he suspected or knew the woman was doing something that could risk the pregnancy?  Did he do everything he could to reduce stress for her?  Did he make sure she got enough sleep?  Did he take on a significant amount of household chores to ease her physical burden?  Did he take over tasks that involved the use of chemical cleaners?  Did he babysit the other kids and teach them not to jump on mommy’s belly?  Was he extra careful during sex?

And you bosses – did you accommodate her properly during the pregnancy?  Did you make sure she wasn’t handling chemicals, changing toner on machines, exposed to machines or equipment that could harm the pregnancy?  Did you make sure not to let her give into typical job pressures of long hours?

And you doctors – better make sure your insurance covers the many, many things you could be sued for in wrongful death.

Now the really tricky stuff that still would absolutely have to be covered if a fetus is a human being:

1.  How can the legal system which must now protect all  fetuses know if a woman is pregnant?  Are we to trust women to report every pregnancy?  Not likely, since we already know that many believe abortion is not murder and history has shown us some get so desperate that they will obtain one illegally.  But the law has to protect all fetuses just as it has to protect all human beings, so the only sure answer is to have women go to registered clinics for a pregnancy test every month for as long as they have even one viable egg left in their government regulated ovaries.

If this isn’t done, a woman could sneak off and have an abortion.

Even REAL women, virtuous ones who would never ever deliberately end a pregnancy could accidentally kill a fetus if they don’t know they are pregnant and where’s the justice for Little Fetus?  What if the woman doesn’t know she is pregnant and decides to go on birth control, or ties one on, or goes bungie-jumping?  What if her hubby pours her an extra glass of champagne on their anniversary?

2.  Folks can’t use the argument that they didn’t know the woman was pregnant because if a fetus is a human being, it is entitled to the same rights as a human being, and people should know that it’s possible that there could be a little fetus growing away.  The only way to be sure there’s no little potential homicide victim hiding in a womb is when the woman starts her period and for a short time after that, so except for that week or so, every woman with even a single viable egg left would have to act – and be treated as – a pregnant woman just in case.  The only time she can be somewhat neglected and neglectful is when she’s on the rag – which is just fine because who wants anything to do with a menstruating  woman anyway?  But she can’t drop all of her responsibilities to the potential fetuses and their potential rights since drugs (and that includes the ones to curb the menstrual pains) stay in her system for some time, or can cause damage.  

Some people will say this is all ridiculous and that the first point – deliberately terminating a pregnancy is the only one that could come about (because it’s really the only one supporters of such a fetus rights  Bill really want), but that would not reflect what the Bill legally defines: Fetus= Human Being.  Everything a person can now be held responsible for a fetus when it comes to caring for, or harming (intentionally or otherwise), or killing, or neglecting just as they now are for a human being.  

3.  Look at all the points above and realize that this applies not only to the death of a fetus, but to its development as well.  If a child is born with a disability or illness, the mother and anyone who had any impact on the fetus would be legally responsible for any permanent or long term ill effects the fetus suffered.

Stephen Woodworth’s bull-shit argument:

The review, he argues, is needed because the law is based on a 400-year-old definition of human being.  "If a child five minutes before birth can be defined as not a human being, then the question is who's next?" he argued.

What a load of crap.  What a dishonest argument.  Four hundred years ago, some races weren’t considered human beings in some lands.  Neither were women.  Their rights were moved forward at great cost to many.  To imply that anyone now considered a human being could be reclassified as something less because in Canada, our government hasn’t declared a fetus as a human being is...insane.  But I do consider the source.  Especially since it comes from the same group of people who largely want to bring back the death penalty.  And who think it’s ok to fire warning shots over people’s heads.  And who believe everyone should have the right to carry concealed, unregistered firearms.

I don,t for a moment believe Woodworth’s Bill is mean in anyway to protect groups of people from being declared non-human.

Just a refresher because we always need to examine harper’s stance on anything that has to do with anything anywhere at all times:

Harper’s denials:

"A Conservative government will not be bringing forward, will not be supporting, and will not be debating the abortion laws in this country. I've been clear on that and, frankly, I think that's put the matter to rest." - Harper (January 11, 2006)

"Very clearly I am against reopening that debate," he said. "That is my position, now and in the past five years as well, and as long as I am prime minister, we will not reopen the debate on abortion. We will leave the law as it stands."  - Harper  (April 21, 2011)

 “The Prime Minister has been very clear, our government will not reopen this debate.” -  Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Feb. 28, 2012)

Harper runs the show.  We know that.  He thinks he can reassure the majority of Canadians – the more sane ones… 

h/t BCL

…while appealing to the rabid nut jobs.

He’s a liar who has no respect at all for Canadians.  We aren’t stupid enough to be swayed by semantics.   He can’t claim that a motion to discuss the fetus as a human being does not re-open abortion debate since abortion is termination of a fetus and legal because a fetus is not a human being under our laws.

I don’t think he intends to get into a full blown debate right now since he still hasn’t the extent of control over Parliament, the public service, communications, the legal system, and media as he wants, but he’ll let this one float near the top, run targeted fund raising campaigns on it, and let the discussion become more frequent and mainstream as time goes on.  Eventually, if he holds onto power long enough, he will have to introduce it or risk fragmenting his party as it not only moves further right, but forces Canada along with it.  The further right our laws go, the further right they will be pushed.  It is extremely naive and dangerous to believe harper will never re-open the abortion debate simply because most Canadians would rebel.  Long form census, Bill C-30, omnibus crime bill, government sanctioned torture, illegal election activities...

Stand on guard for Canada.

That virtuous gun loving party

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: (…) It is appropriate that we teach our youth about our history and the sacrifices made to protect our country. However, I found it difficult to accept that weapons were put in the hands of children to have them reflect on how Canada was defended. Even when we have open door days on our military bases, we never put weapons in the hands of children. We do not allow them to play, as Mr. Trépanier said, cowboys and Indians. We refuse to do so. Furthermore, we signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, which states that children under 18 should not bear arms.

… This was one of the most pejorative pedagogical tools imaginable to represent the history of this country by putting the semblance of weapons in the hands of children, having them shoot each other in a sort of game, and saying they are learning history. I would request that in the processes of the future, in commemoration, we do not need that perverse pedagogical tool to educate our youth about the sacrifices needed to keep this country free, sacrifices that we have had in the past, and to educate them on that process.  (Debates of the Senate, Hansard, February 28, 2012)

LeBreton's response?  Alluding to a LeBreton who founded LeBreton flats, trivialize the incident, claim it's all in good fun, and damn it, part of our history.