Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Interesting contrast where some 2nd hand info is acted on, some isn’t.

Compare the 2 situations.

First, you have the Afghan detainees situation, where reports came from the Red Cross, other international organizations, even our own troops, and sent along to the relevant military and government authorities in Canada – concerned that we were turning Afghan detainees over to the Afghanistan authorities (particularly their police/intelligence force – the NDS), and there was good reason to believe they were getting tortured. What was the Conservative Government’s reaction? We heard for months and months and months in the House of Commons how “no credible evidence” existed (never mind that in international law, one merely needs to have suspicion of prisoners being tortured when turned over to a 3rd party, and still be in violation of it if they continue to turn over prisoners), until finally there WAS a proven case, and the government had to swiftly backtrack. They were literally forced to concede they were wrong.

Compare it to the Helena Guergis situation and see the difference:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was acting on a tip from a third party when he decided to boot his embattled former junior minister from caucus and refer unnamed allegations to the ethics commissioner and police… “For six long weeks this prime minister has stood up and said she is doing a great job and then, hey presto, from Thursday night till Friday morning, he calls in the RCMP,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said in the House of Commons. “Why?”

A senior government official said later that the prime minister’s office acted on “serious and credible allegations” though he stressed the information was secondhand.

Harper acted pretty quickly on “second-hand information” in THAT scenario, didn’t he? Just saying.


Comments are closed.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.