CanPol: Gomery and a Looming Federal Election

[Drake Tungsten]

What's the big deal about not being able to scream "Kill the Jews, because they are poisoning babies with Quaker Oatmeal" from the rooftops?

It's illegal to run commercials saying "Tylenol cures the AIDS" in the States. OMFG, no freedom of speech!

I was talking more about publication bans, which the American press hasn't been muzzled by since the '70's.

[notyoueither]

Judges for sale?

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=36329c3b-c961-409a-83da-91ac8ce7d5c5

Claims of judicial corruption spark angry denials, demands for probe

Sue Bailey
Canadian Press

April 22, 2005

OTTAWA (CP) - Conservatives are demanding an official probe into allegations that lawyers who volunteered for the Liberals during the 2000 election were later made judges as a reward.

But Justice Minister Irwin Cotler refused to call in the RCMP or the Canadian Judicial Council. The Conservatives are "trafficking in innuendo and in drive-by smears," Cotler shot back Thursday during another day of rhetorical brawling in the Commons.

He chided the Official Opposition for leaping on the latest round of atomic allegations with no proof of wrongdoing.

Former Liberal organizer Benoit Corbeil, once an influential power broker in Quebec, says "seven or eight" lawyers were named to the bench after volunteering for the party.

"Anyone who wanted to be a judge or win mandates needed to have friendly relations with those people," he said of unnamed senior Liberals.

Corbeil made the comments in an interview with Radio Canada, the CBC French network. But he refused to reveal names and offered no evidence to back up the claims.

Corbeil is expected to testify at the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal in the coming weeks.

Prime Minister Paul Martin was quick to defend how judges are selected.

"These are essentially appointments based on merit and they go through a very non-partisan expert panel," he said.

Eugene Meehan, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, says the appointment system has many checks and balances.

"It just couldn't work," he says of the kind of scam described by Corbeil.

"The process for judicial appointments is public, it's published and well-known."

It includes an arm's-length Canadian Bar Association evaluation committee that reviews every application and cross-checks references, Meehan said.

Still, Conservative justice critic Vic Toews says an investigation is needed.

"It is an issue that does need to be explored because this is now . . . casting a cloud over our judiciary. This matter either needs to be investigated by the RCMP or by the judicial council in the province of Quebec.

"That's the kind of leadership that I'm looking for from a minister of Justice."

Cotler dismissed the issue as a string of unproven accusations made by one man.

And Corbeil has been deeply implicated in the growing scandal over how Ottawa spent $250 million in sponsorships to promote federalism in Quebec.

He has been named by Jean Brault, former president of Montreal ad firm Groupaction, as a Liberal insider who asked for $400,000 to cover party bills in exchange for lucrative sponsorship contracts.

The opposition should hang fire and wait for testimony before Gomery to wrap up.

[notyoueither]

Martin directly linked?

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=eee53322-f1ea-486e-9282-a09e03a0c8ec

Contract boost by Finance Dep't earned $75,000 for Martin friend: documents

Brian Daly
Canadian Press

Friday, April 22, 2005

MONTREAL (CP) - Finance Department officials boosted the value of a contract when Paul Martin was finance minister that landed one of his friends $75,000 for doing little work, documents at the sponsorship inquiry show.

Inquiry counsel grilled ad man Claude Boulay about the commission Thursday and also heard his wife recall the couple's close relationship with Martin when they worked on his 1993 election campaign. Memos from January 1996 indicate the Finance Department approved additional funding for a Canada Savings Bond direct mail campaign that was co-managed by Boulay's firm, Groupe Everest.

The revised contract, unrelated to the sponsorship program, saw Everest take a $75,000 commission after funding was boosted to $2.6 million from $1.7 million in early 1996.

Documents show Boulay's ad firm was paid a 17.56 per cent commission for the campaign even though the bulk of the work was done by another agency, Pinnacle Advertising.

It wasn't clear whether Martin knew about the funding increase, or the fact that the expanded deal put money in Boulay's pocket. The information came to light as Martin prepared to address the nation Thursday night about the sponsorship scandal.

Boulay, who continued his testimony at the inquiry on Thursday, had worked on Martin's 1990 leadership bid as well as his 1988 and 1993 election campaigns.

Martin has repeatedly denied allegations he interfered in advertising contracts to Everest's benefit.

The funding approval went ahead over the objections of Public Works official Allan Cutler, who later blew the lid off of the sponsorship scandal.

Cutler said in a memo to a finance official that Groupe Everest's involvement in the contract was minimal or nil.

"Groupe Everest will presumably obtain a commission on the sub-contract without having done any work," said the memo dated Jan. 26, 1996.

But Boulay testified Thursday that Cutler was in no position to know what work Everest performed on the campaign.

"I don't know how he could make this comment," the ad executive said under questioning from inquiry counsel Marie Cossette. "He wasn't there when we met with Pinnacle."

Boulay said he earned his commission by meeting with Pinnacle officials to discuss strategy and oversee mailouts.

Boulay has been questioned over his relationship with Martin as well as Everest's $67 million in sponsorship contracts. The sponsorship program has been linked to alleged corruption that could bring down Martin's minority Liberal government.

Ad man Jean Brault has testified to funnelling $1.1 million to the federal Liberals in exchange for sponsorship contracts.

Boulay and Martin have also denied testimony alleging they discussed Everest's lucrative Attractions Canada sponsorship contract. The pair has also downplayed their friendship over the years.

More details on the friendship emerged Thursday during testimony by Boulay's wife, Diane Deslauriers, who said Martin once had brunch at their home with campaign workers in 1993.

Deslauriers said she admired Martin and worked with him every day during the 1993 campaign, an experience in which everyone bonded.

"People may not know each other at the beginning, but by the end of the campaign, we realize we have become family by the end of the 35 to 40 days."

She went on to call Martin "a very generous and devoted man."

Deslauriers said she handled phone calls, campaigned door-to-door and performed communications work for Martin during the campaign.

She was also confronted Thursday with a letter to her husband from Martin in which expressed his regrets at missing Boulay's 50th birthday party.

The letter from 2001 began with the greeting "Dear Claude," praised Deslauriers for her beauty and was signed simply, "Paul."

But Deslauriers disagreed with Cossette's statement that the letter showed Deslauriers and Boulay were intimate friends with Martin.

"Intimate is a big word," said Deslauriers.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest is also under scrutiny for alleged links to Everest.

Brault has said he funneled $50,000 to Charest's 1998 provincial campaign through Boulay's firm, a charge Boulay denied on Wednesday.

He told the inquiry the $50,000 cheque from Groupaction was the balance owed him for his purchase of two downtown buildings from Brault.

But commission counsel Cossette suggested the transaction was a cover story and mentioned a brief meeting between the two men 10 days ago.

Cossette suggested to Boulay that he told Brault: "For the $50,000, we'll say it was the balance on a sale." She said the comments were made in the presence of Brault's lawyer, Harvey Yarosky.

Boulay said that while he did meet Brault, they never discussed a coverup for the money.

How realistic is it to accept that the Finance Minister and senior MP from Quebec had absolutely no idea that this **** was going on? It's patronage, Canadian style since at least Confederation after all.

The problem with this mess is the blatant nature of it, and the fact the Liberal Party was running so close to empty they had to turn up the flow that it was impossible to miss.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lets say I could show that 70% of Lesbian couples planned to have children versus 60% of heterosexual couples.

First of all, are Lesbian couples what gay marriage is about? What percentage of gay men are going to be raising children?

Secondly, I would be very interested in the overall percentage of lesbian couples who do the same.

Thirdly, and this is the most important part, why should we treat lesbians apart from any other caregivers and legal guardians of children? Just because they are the legal guardian does not make them the mother and father of the child.

That's one of the important features of marriage, that it is self-sustaining. Gay marriage is not, and requires assistance from outside.

[notyoueither]

dp

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think I have ever before heard anyone propose that marriage is an affirmative action program for parents

You laugh, but the argument is very real.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


First of all, are Lesbian couples what gay marriage is about? What percentage of gay men are going to be raising children?

Lets make it tough on you and assume that many gay couples don't want marriage that 90% of those that do plan to raise children. Lets assume that it is much less for hetro couples. If marriage is affirmative action for parents, by what logic would you provide benfits to one group that are less frequently parents than a group you deny those same benefits

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Thirdly, and this is the most important part, why should we treat lesbians apart from any other caregivers and legal guardians of children? Just because they are the legal guardian does not make them the mother and father of the child.

Excellent point !! We SHOULDN'T. Among heterosexuals we don't treat parents or guardians ANY differently than non parents. All are permitted to marry. Children are IRRELEVANT to the right to marry.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's one of the important features of marriage, that it is self-sustaining. Gay marriage is not, and requires assistance from outside.

I laugh at this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Lets make it tough on you and assume that many gay couples don't want marriage that 90% of those that do plan to raise children. Lets assume that it is much less for hetro couples. If marriage is affirmative action for parents, by what logic would you provide benfits to one group that are less frequently parents than a group you deny those same benefits

The point is that this is not the case. Most do not plan on raising children. Therefore, the argument for marriage benefits as affirmative action provisions do not work for these couples.

Excellent point !! We SHOULDN'T. Among heterosexuals we don't treat parents or guardians ANY differently than non parents. All are permitted to marry. Children are IRRELEVANT to the right to marry.

Irrelevant? Hardly. They are the biggest issue of all. The reason why society obtains any benefit whatsoever from marriage in the long-term is from the families that result from them.

There is no reason for society to provide any benefits to married couples, unless there is a reasonable chance for children to result.

Now, you want the benefits, can you show me why society ought to provide them to any married couple, given these changes that you argue ought to be instituted? I don't really see much justification for that.

Secondly, as for guardians and caretakers being treated differently than parents I find your assertion odd. There are distinctions made between the two, especially in cases where the parent is not the caregiver. The parent still has certain rights with respect to their children that are not extinguished even if their children have been placed with another guardian. The converse is not also true. A guardian does not retain any rights to a child when they are removed as guardians.

I laugh at this one.

It's an argument that looks at the nature of things. You define species whether or not the union of a male or a female will result in offspring. If the union does not result in an offspring, then the union is considered to be of a different nature than the previous one.

The same is true here between the union of a man and a woman, and between two men, or two woman. The two are of a different fundamental nature, and ought not be considered the same.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The point is that this is not the case. Most do not plan on raising children. Therefore, the argument for marriage benefits as affirmative action provisions do not work for these couples.

Since I think your idea that marriage is affirmative action is silly, so what? But the point all all sorts of hetero couples with no ability or intention to reproduce are permitted marriage. If marriage was only about reproduction they would also be told no.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



Irrelevant? Hardly. They are the biggest issue of all. The reason why society obtains any benefit whatsoever from marriage in the long-term is from the families that result from them.

Hmmm so society garners no benefit at all from a childless union where two individuals support each other and assist each other and care for one another?? I reject that.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

There is no reason for society to provide any benefits to married couples, unless there is a reasonable chance for children to result.

yet society draws no distiction and the childless couples are every bit as married

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



Secondly, as for guardians and caretakers being treated differently than parents I find your assertion odd. There are distinctions made between the two, especially in cases where the parent is not the caregiver. The parent still has certain rights with respect to their children that are not extinguished even if their children have been placed with another guardian. The converse is not also true. A guardian does not retain any rights to a child when they are removed as guardians.

and what does any of this has to do with marriage?? parental rights may, in some circumstances be extinguished . . . but what does that have to do with marriage

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The same is true here between the union of a man and a woman, and between two men, or two woman. The two are of a different fundamental nature, and ought not be considered the same.

My bottom line is I think your childrearing argument is simply crap for the very reason that marraige is permitted to heteros that have no intention or ability to reproduce and denied homosexuals that plan to raise children.

Obviously, a heterosexual couple may usually reproduce without outside assistence.I just don't see why that matters.



There is much more to marriage than children. Why should , for example, a committed homosexual life partner need a bunch of documents to be able to make medical decisions for their partner -- a right a spouse takes for granted??

[Ben Kenobi]

Flubber:

But the point all all sorts of hetero couples with no ability or intention to reproduce are permitted marriage. If marriage was only about reproduction they would also be told no.

How could you divine intent? That's the real issue. They cannot be told no, because such intent cannot be established beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The same is not true with gay marriage. Regardless of the intent the union will not produce children.

As for the ability of a couple to produce children, again, how can we restrict couples that do not know they are infertile from marrying? They might not even know themselves. Unlike gay couples, they do not choose their infertility.

Finally, there is your last case of the couples, who by age, cannot produce children. Suppose a widow and a widower sought to comfort each other in old age, in marriage.

Now my question is this. If marriage is simply about companionship, they do not need to get married. There are many friendships that can fulfill many of the same desires. To drive your argument home, there must be something different between two friends united in friendship and a husband and wife united in marriage.

What I find tremendously difficult is to divide the two, without some concept of the marital union, between a husband and a wife. Such union is unique between a man and a woman, and cannot be shared, either by friends, or by any other combination.

Hmmm so society garners no benefit at all from a childless union where two individuals support each other and assist each other and care for one another?? I reject that.

I agree with you. But such arrangements are not found only in in marriage. You can find a great number of similar arrangements between a caretaker and their charge. There is no need to provide specifically marital benefits, if this is the only benefit derived from marriage.

yet society draws no distiction and the childless couples are every bit as married

You are correct her. Almost all marriages are childless at some point in time. They don't start being married when they have children. However, they are considered married when they make vows to each other, and consummate their union, which brings us back to the point I made earlier, that marriage cannot be separated from the union in marriage.

and what does any of this has to do with marriage?? parental rights may, in some circumstances be extinguished . . . but what does that have to do with marriage

If we treat parents different from caregivers, than the relationship between a parent and their child, cannot be replaced by a relationship between a caregiver and the child assigned to them.

You are assuming that there is no difference, but if there is a difference between the two, than that is a defense of marriage which can produce children rather than merely adopting them.

Obviously, a heterosexual couple may usually reproduce without outside assistence.I just don't see why that matters.

It goes back to the indissoluable unity between the concept of marriage and the concept of a marital union. This is evidence that there is something fundamentally different between the union of a man and a woman, and between two men, or two women.

There is much more to marriage than children. Why should , for example, a committed homosexual life partner need a bunch of documents to be able to make medical decisions for their partner -- a right a spouse takes for granted??

Okay, lets sift out your points here.

When does a partner qualify as 'committed?'

When does a partner qualify as a 'life partner'?

Why does it matter that the partner is both committed and a life partner?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



Okay, lets sift out your points here.

When does a partner qualify as 'committed?'

When does a partner qualify as a 'life partner'?

Why does it matter that the partner is both committed and a life partner?

I don't know. I don't decide what makes another couple a couple who have joined their lives together. I would let them get married to allow them to voluntarily take on the legal rights and responsibilities that marriage brings.


On the rest of it, I'm thinking that on your construction, you should propose that marriage is limited to those that will have children . Weddings should be performed between 12 and 24 weeks gestation.

Seriously though I fundamentally reject your idea of what marriage is. Even if your ideas were a correct explanation of the history or marriage, I reject that it is what marriage "should be".

My idea you ask?

Marriage should be a legal bond between two adult persons who choose to formally link their lives with all the rights and responsibilities that brings.

[joncha]

I think married couples who have not procreated within 12 months of getting married should be jailed.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by joncha
I think married couples who have not procreated within 12 months of getting married should be jailed.

You're such a liberal. They should be burned at the stake.

[Ben Kenobi]

Go away joncha.

Just cause you got one doesn't mean you get to lord it over the rest of us.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage should be a legal bond between two adult persons who choose to formally link their lives with all the rights and responsibilities that brings.

Okay then. Can I marry my grandmother because she enjoys talking to me, and I enjoy listening to her?