Radwanski is Too Kind - CanWest is Scum: Despicable Smearjob On McGuinty

You must read Radwanski detailing CanWest sleaze. Absolutely vital. Will CanWest print as prominent stories correcting the record? Originally, when I saw the headline, I was appalled McGuinty had made such a comparison, so stupid, so insensitive, so out of character. Turns out, it was CanWest, IN character, that was disgraceful, imputing non-existent outrageous comparisons, and smearing McGuinty with it. McGuinty was asked an almost unbelievably bad faith question, and had the grace to give exactly the kind of thoughtful, measured, complete response people always say they want from politicians. This episode goes really well with the Dumont-Bouchard interview on the state of politics I noted earlier. This whole story just illustrates how our politicians are so much better at their jobs than our media are at theirs. Just a complete disgrace.

Not All Bad, the UK: Day the East End said 'No pasaran' to Blackshirts

Even though the BNP vote went up a bit, worryingly, although not as much as might have been expected, perhaps, How Barking and Dagenham saw off the BNP links to fine UK tradition, Day the East End said 'No pasaran' to Blackshirts:

They built barricades from paving stones, timber and overturned lorries. Women threw the contents of chamber pots on to the heads of policemen and children hurled marbles under their horses and burst bags of pepper in front of their noses.

Next Wednesday marks the 70th anniversary of the day that Jews, communists, trade unionists, Labour party members, Irish Catholic dockers and the people of the East End of London united in defiance of Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists and refused to let them march through their streets.

Shouting the Spanish civil war slogan "No pasaran" - "They shall not pass" - more than 300,000 people turned back an army of Blackshirts. Their victory over racism and anti-Semitism on Sunday October 4 1936 became known as the Battle of Cable Street and encapsulated the British fight against a fascism that was stomping across Europe.

Mosley planned to send columns of thousands of goose-stepping men throughout the impoverished East End dressed in uniforms that mimicked those of Hitler's Nazis. His target was the large Jewish community.

The Jewish Board of Deputies advised Jews to stay away. The Jewish Chronicle warned: "Jews are urgently warned to keep away from the route of the Blackshirt march and from their meetings.

"Jews who, however innocently, become involved in any possible disorders will be actively helping anti-Semitism and Jew-baiting. Unless you want to help the Jew baiters, keep away."

The Jews did not keep away. Professor Bill Fishman, now 89, who was 15 on the day, was at Gardner's Corner in Aldgate, the entrance to the East End. "There was masses of marching people. Young people, old people, all shouting 'No Pasaran' and 'One two three four five - we want Mosley, dead or alive'," he said. "It was like a massive army gathering, coming from all the side streets. Mosley was supposed to arrive at lunchtime but the hours were passing and he hadn't come. Between 3pm and 3.30 we could see a big army of Blackshirts marching towards the confluence of Commercial Road and Whitechapel Road.

Marbles

"I pushed myself forward and because I was 6ft I could see Mosley. They were surrounded by an even greater army of police. There was to be this great advance of the police force to get the fascists through. Suddenly, the horses' hooves were flying and the horses were falling down because the young kids were throwing marbles."

Thousands of policemen were sandwiched between the Blackshirts and the anti-fascists. The latter were well organised and through a mole learned that the chief of police had told Mosley that his passage into the East End could be made through Cable Street.

"I heard this loudspeaker say 'They are going to Cable Street'," said Prof Fishman. "Suddenly a barricade was erected there and they put an old lorry in the middle of the road and old mattresses. The people up the top of the flats, mainly Irish Catholic women, were throwing rubbish on to the police. We were all side by side. I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism."

Max Levitas, now 91, was a message runner and had already been fined £10 in court for his anti-Mosley activities. Two years before Cable Street, the BUF had called a meeting in Hyde Park and in protest Mr Levitas whitewashed Nelson's column, calling people to the park to drown out the fascists. Mr Levitas went on to become a Communist councillor in Stepney.

"I feel proud that I played a major part in stopping Mosley. When we heard that the march was disbanded, there was a hue and cry and the flags were going wild. They did not pass. The chief of police decided that if the march had taken place there would be death on the road - and there would have been," he said.

"It was a victory for ordinary people against racism and anti-Semitism and it should be instilled in the minds of people today. The Battle of Cable Street is a history lesson for us all. People as people must get together and stop racism and anti-Semitism so people can lead an ordinary life and develop their own ideas and religions."

Beatty Orwell, 89, was scared and excited. "People were fighting and a friend of mine was thrown through a plate glass window."

Deschamps dans la bouche de Bouchard : Trudeau, l'exemple pour tous

Entretien intéressant. Les anti-trudeauistes, se rendent-ils compte, psychologiquement, à quel point ils sont trudeauistes? Drôle, la vie.

LB : Et il faut quand même respecter une certaine marge de manoeuvre de la part des élus. Quand est venu le temps de choisir un architecte pour la Grande Bibliothèque, j'ai voulu faire comme Trudeau, qui avait choisi lui-même l'architecte de l'ambassade du Canada à Washington. Ils m'ont dit non, ce n'est pas possible. Pourquoi le premier ministre ne peut-il pas choisir un architecte ? On déplore que les politiciens n'aient plus de personnalité, mais on ne veut pas qu'ils en aient. Et en plus, on les traite comme de la marchandise. Moi, je n'en reviens jamais de voir les politiciens qui se pressent pour participer aux émissions de variétés. Ils se banalisent. Ce n'est pas la place d'un homme politique.

Plaid Cymru rider: freezing the Severn bridge toll & more airplay for the Manics

Coalition? Malcolm Tucker's got a few ideas...

Look, the truth is, a Lib-Lab coalition will be hard to achieve, and will probably lead to infighting and unseemly concessions and politicking that will destroy the left for a generation in this country. But I think that we all feel it will be worth it to stop Osborne from looking pleased even if it's just for 10 extra minutes.

But it might not have to be that way. I've been working the phones. I've been chopping the Plaid Cymru rider down from 40 billion and an unlimited supply of green M&Ms to just freezing the Severn bridge toll and more airplay for the Manics. I've grabbed Caroline Lucas from skinning up and playing with her Guatemalan rainstick. Basically I've rounded up a ragtag army. And this army must now march boldly on and persuade Clegg that together we can seek the electoral reform that we in this great movement of ours have so occasionally believed in.

Where there is ball ache, may we bring lotions. Where there is error, may we bring a statistical margin for it to exist in. Where there is doubt, may they insist on bringing Cable. And where there is despair, may we bring a degree of initial confusion but eventually a somewhat enduring botched job.

Parliamentarians Must Have Final Say On Docs Release, Not Outsiders

There is mostly good news on resolving the dispute between the Executive & Legislative branches over the examination & disclosure of detainee documents, reaffirming Parliamentary Supremacy & Democracy, but everyone's efforts will have been for naught if legislators do not insist that whatever dispute resolution mechanisms are put in place, it must be Parliament, Parliamentarians, that have the final say, not judges or outside third parties. Parliamentarians must carry that burden, that is their jobs, and it may well make them more loath to release disputed documents than otherwise, since they would wear all the consequences, but they must not shirk their obligation.

One does not lead a campaign for Parliament and democracy to then submit Parliament to outside authority. If you want to use Milliken as an arbiter for any irresolvable disputes, after having heard advice on whether or not to release certain documents from pertinent sources (ex: ministry officials), fine, as he is a Parliamentarian. But might I suggest that the committee should roughly mimic the representation in the HoC, with a bare majority for the Opposition, perhaps 4-3 (2L, 1B, 1N) instead of 6-5? And that Milliken be one of the two Liberals, but only participates, and chairs meetings, when the committee is deadlocked 3-3, as a fresh pair of eyes, holding the deciding vote? And this situation would only arise very very infrequently, if members acted in good faith, and after having heard, as mentioned, from the advice of all relevant officials cognisant of these matters (not just from the government, but could also ask SIRC members for advice if needed, since they are used to calling bullshit). I fear I am almost certain that Parliamentarians will be more deferential to claims of national security than they should be, for fear of the horrendous consequences, real and political, should they get it wrong. But that's their job, as our representatives, to be as courageous or cowardly as they see fit, in our name.

Parliamentarians, do your duty.

Coyne's Imagination Deployed in Attempt to Save Him on C-232

I don't want to give away all of this week's extremely entertaining Coyne column on C-232, full of his rich imaginings, signifying less than nothing, as usual when trapped (all columnists' prerogative, I admit), but it is worth quoting this particular rêverie, which is his last redoubt when routed by reason: "The implications are alarming - not only a general decline in the quality of the judges, but the effective exclusion of the West from consideration." Perhaps my eyes fail me, or the relevant clauses are written in invisible ink, perceptible only to Coyne & his ilk, but try as I might, I can't see where the text of C-232 overturns the ironclad constitutional convention on appointments: "By convention, the remaining six positions are divided in the following manner: three from Ontario, two from the western provinces (typically one from British Columbia and one from the Prairie Provinces, which in turn rotates amongst the three, although Alberta is known to cause skips in the rotation) and one from the Atlantic provinces, alternating between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick." Perhaps Coyne remains unaware of the many perfectly qualified bilingual judges from the West? Allow me enlighten him, and others, once again, via Joe Comartin:

I had better put this on the record. I sat through the last four appointments to the Supreme Court. The last two rounds have been the prairie provinces and then the Maritimes. We're sworn to secrecy in sitting on those panels, but the reality is that there were more than enough candidates—I don't think I'm disclosing any surprises here—from both of those jurisdictions to meet that high test of bilingualism. I don't think I can say anything more than that without going into the specifics of their credentials, but there was not a problem with having a significant number of qualified candidates.

As for diminished quality, my ears must be as poor as my eyes, or I am not reading and listening sufficiently, or such complaints are top secret and Coyne is of one the few to be able to read the invisible ink or hear the otherwise indecipherable secret frequencies through which such things are disclosed, since I am surprised, examining the empirical evidence, to hear of such complaints about the quality of ALL OUR OTHER FEDERAL COURTS which are ALL fully bilingual. Or perhaps, just maybe, Coyne's rich imagination has run away with him again? Or he is unaware there is a large stable of bilingual judges at the highest levels, from all regions of the country, ready and waiting to be appointed to the Supreme Court? Then allow me to quote Senator Tardif, to educate him and the other sadly ignorant:

Parliament has recognized the need for any federal court, including the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, to be able to conduct proceedings in French as well as in English by appointing judges who understand both official languages without the need for an interpreter. Ironically, there is only one exception: the Supreme Court.

The rest of Coyne is an attempt to prove, contrary to all evidence and study, that the simplest passive language skills, to be able to listen, perhaps to read, are exactly equivalent to the more demanding active language skills of talking and writing. Coyne's hypothesis is extremely novel in the field of linguistics, to say the least, and I would encourage one espousing such original thinking to do further research on the matter - if he was right, he would be overturning pretty much all established linguistics and have the opportunity of making a name for himself as an iconoclastic Canadian Chomsky. Go to it, man, make your name in yet another field of endeavour. Far from me to discourage such original thinking and suggest the whole thing is without any basis in reality, is a false premise, and represents the last gasp fabulations of a rhetorician unwilling to admit defeat...

Paging Dr. Turp: PQ - L'intégrité territoriale devra primer sur les droits des autochtones

Hmm. Daniel Turp soutient que les nations québécoise et autochtones ont un droit semblable, en droit international, à l'autodétermination et à la sécession par voie démocratique. vs. L'intégrité territoriale devra primer sur les droits des autochtones, dit le PQ

Good Tibbetts Article, But Cdn Bar Assn DOES Support C-232, Effectively

In Tibbett's good, fair piece Merits of making Supreme Court bilingual could be lost in translation, there is one point that needs correcting. Contrary to what she writes, the Canadian Bar Association, representing the country’s lawyers, has already taken a position long ago, back in 2008 when the last appointment came up: Canadian Bar Association Says Bilingualism to be Considered Part of Merit Criteria. Now, some may claim that the CBA seems to only say that bilingualism should be one aspect of merit among many in selecting candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court. However, if you use your noggin for a second, you'll realise, that this effectively stipulates that bilingualism should be a sine qua non for selection. Remember what Comartin noted, that in the last rounds of selection from the Maritimes and the Prairies, "there were more than enough candidates from both of those jurisdictions to meet that high test of bilingualism". Now think: there is never one Platonic Ideal Candidate, far and away better than the rest. There are always a number of excellent candidates, with little to pick between them. If Rothstein had not been selected, and the alternate choice had been bilingual, no-one would have doubted his or her suitability, given their qualifications. So when the CBA says bilingualism should be one of the merit criteria, it is effectively endorsing bilingualism as a pre-requisite, since in the final round there will always be bilingual judges, and with so little to choose between the candidates, that criteria will tip the balance for some over others. C-232 is honest, it makes explicit what the CBA & others would rather keep or make implicit. But it's important to be explicit, and get the word out: y'all want to succeed in national public life in Canada? Then you have to be bilingual. Crucial to that, is, as Fraser says, Canadian youth need more second-language opportunities at university, and that means establishing the standards and allocating the resources to make that happen, with the ripple effects for pre-university education, and post-university continuing education, in the widest sense.

PS. 11 is my lucky number

Tenth Time's a Charm: Sen Chaput & I Educate Gazoo & Clueless re. C-232

1 2 3 4 5 6 !!**7**!! 8 9 Now for no. 10, thanks to Worthington & the Gazoo. First, I came across a free Sun in McDo, and that's how I found out Worthington thinks we're still in 2009, or 1969 maybe, and the bill's still in the House. Poor old dear. 'Nuff said. As for the Gazoo, a paper I always defend against the cool kids, today's editorial is an argument for increased funding for Anglo education from the QC Govt - holà les PQ et PLQ, vous vous rendez compte des effets dévastateurs de vos politiques anti-anglophones maintenant?! Ils ne sont plus capables de lire leur propre langue, encore moins construire des arguments cohérents. Ayez pitié. Lisez ceci, svp. OK, I'm writing this for the Gazoo editorial board, and I'm going to take the calculated risk that they may, if they put all their heads together, collectively, be just about capable of reading me without me resorting to all-CAPS or very very small one syllable words. OK, so here's the Gazoo:

Should bilingualism - real bilingualism, we mean, true fluency in both English and French - be a requirement for membership on the Supreme Court of Canada? At first glance, the idea has some appeal. But in practice, although true bilingualism will we believe become the norm for our high court, imposing a formal rule to that effect would be a mistake. (...) Godin, a New Brunswick francophone, is the author of a private member's bill to require that nominees to Canada's highest court be so bilingual that they do not require a translator or interpreter.

A formal rule imposing "true bilingualism", requiring nominees "be so bilingual that they do not require a translator or interpreter"? Gee, it's lucky THAT'S NOT WHAT C-232 SAYS!!!! As previously stated: "Carpay & the Gazette should work on their first language skills before raving incoherently about bilingualism. As pointed out by Yalden already, C-232 does NOT require fluency in both Official Languages"


I know the real reason behind the Gazoo's silliness, they give the game away with their "coercion" line. They are making a link between this and linguistic coercion in QC. But they could not be more wrong, philosophically, they've got it backwards, as the federation's enemies well know - the logic of bilingualism is one of greater Canadian integration, it is part of a nation-building project that not just was enormously successful, but remains so, in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Quebeckers and Canadians, despite all of QC nationalism's and other provinces' parochialism. It is the only game in town.  It is why separatists have always put so much effort into trying to make it uncool, or passé, or most cleverly, a noble effort, doomed to defeat (very Economist rhetoric that - can't say they didn't learn from the best propagandists). But to their frustration, and those of the small-minded and narrow-hearted coast to coast to coast, it remains the one viable project in this geopolitical space. 


The cost benefit of separation, with the enormous dislocations involved, is almost incalculably negative, and the dynamic effects as far as increased assimilation for all involved, to American English and culture, are even worse, and that is as true now as it was for Lafontaine & Baldwin, Cartier & Macdonald. Canada is an act of will, yes, BUT SO IS EVERY SOCIETY, EVERY PROJECT. We've made this place work remarkably well since 1774, we're one of the oldest democracies, with only maybe Switzerland and UK as our competition (we basically had universal male suffrage by 1850, without slavery - who else did?). There are two other options. Go "Belgian" - and end up with a completely dysfunctional state, leading to separation, de facto, and then de jure. Or skip straight to separation -  and as noted, that would be a disaster, comparatively. 


The federal bilingual logic is unavoidable. This law would provide a small boost for the incredible success of Trudeau-Marchand-Pelletier's oeuvre, which was so damn hard-fought. So exhausting, that while efforts have been continued by their successors, the next stage, as with medicare, remains to be achieved. Graham Fraser's proposals re. education (notably post-secondary) are essential in that regard. Honestly, how can anyone graduate with a degree in the social sciences in Canada, notably history, poli sci & sociology, and not be at least passively bilingual, ie. able to understand the other official language (read & listen)?


So the Gazoo has seemingly not read the actual bill, and strangely contradicts itself on a raft of previous editorials as regards bilingualism, all out of concern for philosophically supporting coercive language legislation, with Bill 101 in the back of their minds. But C-232, and the logic of bilingualism, is of course the philosophy which best safeguards linguistic communities and represents the nation-building project so feared and hated by separatists and the worst of the narrow-minded and short-sighted nationalists. The Gazoo's position is in fact one that would best please the heart of a Péquiste. "Durham here and Durham there" is their logic. Any sentient, liberal humanist should reply, "no, Bald-Laf-Mac-Cart-Trudeau, everywhere".


Now, for the Tenth Time, your education, via Senator Chaput, notably:

It is scarcely necessary to remind my honourable colleagues, assembled here in this noble chamber, that our Constitution says clearly and unequivocally that French and English "have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada."

Our Constitution also provides that real equality between English and French must be advanced, and that Parliament has the powers necessary to do so. We are still far from the laudable goal of true equality. The passage of Bill C-232 would constitute a giant step toward this ideal that we have set for ourselves.

The justices on Canada's Supreme Court are called upon to hear cases in both official languages and to apply the principles of law arising from our two great and separate legal traditions. The court's decisions are final and without appeal, and their consequences are often of the utmost importance.

[English]

How would one explain to a francophone appearing before the court that his or her case was going to be heard by justices who did not understand his or her chosen official language? What if an English-speaking Canadian were required to plead before justices who spoke nothing but French? It seems obvious to me that the second situation would be just as unacceptable as the first one.

[Translation]

Bill C-232 is designed to keep us heading in the right direction. It is based upon the principles of natural justice. The right to be heard constitutes the cornerstone of our justice system. How can someone really be heard if he cannot really be understood?

The Department of Justice explains in one of its publications that:

. . . because of the official bilingualism within the federal jurisdiction and the coexistence of two legal systems in the country, there are four audiences for the law in Canada . . . anglophones and francophones subject to the civil law, on the one hand, and anglophones and francophones subject to the common law, on the other hand.

The nine justices who sit on our country's highest court should at least be able to understand, without an interpreter, counsel from all of these four audiences. In my view, this is the bare minimum.

[English]

Let us be very clear: The bill we are discussing does not aim to impose on our future Supreme Court justices a requirement that they speak both official languages fluently. Perfect bilingualism is not the criteria. What is demanded is the ability to understand the other language without an interpreter. This is a distinction worth making.

[Translation]

In a decision by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in 1984, quoted by the Supreme Court of Canada and dealing with the language skills required for a judge to hear a case, Chief Justice Monnin explained that knowledge of a language has four levels: understanding of the written language, understanding of the spoken language, ability to speak the language, and ability to write the language.

According to Chief Justice Monnin, it is not necessary for judges to achieve the third or fourth levels, but it is indispensable that they understand the language, and I quote:

No burden must be put upon those who ask for a trial in French nor should the evidence of witnesses using one or the other of the two constitutionally recognized languages have to be sifted for the trier of facts through the mind and mouth of an interpreter.

This reasoning applies even more strongly when a matter is before the court of last resort, the highest court in the land.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that the English and French versions of Canada's statutes "are equally authoritative." This means that there is not one version that takes precedence over the other; there is not an original and a translation; but rather there is just one law, drafted in English and in French, which must be interpreted on the basis of Canadian bilingualism and bijuralism.

Both language versions of Canadian statutes "are equally authoritative." A diligent judge will thus, in order to fully understand the significance of certain provisions, have to read both the French and the English versions, because the two form a single whole.

The two versions of a law may complement each other or clash with each other; in a way, the two versions are a dialogue. An understanding of both of Canada's official languages is thus a sine qua non for a full understanding of the country's laws.

This "equal authenticity rule" applicable to federal legislative texts was formulated by the Supreme Court for the first time in 1891, in C.P.R. v. Robinson, and I quote:

In the case of ambiguity, where there is any possibility to reconcile the two, one must be interpreted by the other. The English version cannot be read out of the law. It was submitted to the legislature, enacted and sanctioned simultaneously with the French one, and is law just as much as the French one.

It was confirmed by the Quebec Court of Appeal that "Canadian courts have not only the right but also the obligation to take into account both official texts and use them to interpret each other." The same obligation is incumbent upon our court of final instance, and with still more reason.

Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, said recently:

. . . when someone comes forward and says . . . about a candidate [for the Supreme Court], that he is very competent, that he has all of this experience, but he doesn't have the ability to hear a case that's presented before the Supreme Court in the language in which that case is presented, then he is missing a critical competence.

Con Caucus, PC + Reform, Pushing PM to Obey Parliament?

The CPC was born of the fusion of the red-tory institution-loving Progressive Conservatives and the democracy-loving parliament-empowering Reform Party. Con MPs are not Harper-bots, privately, and the more time goes by, as they remain in Opposition and Harper mucks things up, as with culture cuts during 2008 election, or Harper's post-election provoking the Opposition into almost taking power, or the anthem, etc., and they themselves feel more confident vs. Harper & Giorno, through experience in government, and realising they'll never make cabinet as things stand, or if in cabinet, can never rise further with Harper around, the more they are willing to push back against the PMO. For example, Chong had some interesting remarks today. Some may say, well that's just Chong being Chong. But remember on the abortion motion, caucus opposed Harper and pulled him around to its point of view. Now reflect on Toews', Nicholson's, Jay Hill's and others' demeanour, words & body language on respecting the Speaker's Ruling. Reflect on their profiles - attorney generals from PC tradition, and Reform-born House Leaders are not given to overthrowing parliamentary democracy by nature.

For most of the Con caucus, the thought of having an election in which they are arguing AGAINST parliamentary supremacy is pretty much a sickening possibility, given their origins and onetime principles. Nicholson faithfully did his job as a good lawyer, arguing the government's case to the Speaker, but he did not seem overly put out by the decision, far from it, he was happy to have won on a couple of minor points, but almost relieved to not go down in history as the AG who convinced the Speaker to overthrow Parliamentary Supremacy. Nicholson, like the others, felt bound by duty and loyalty to fight the CPC corner. But now the decision has come out as they expected it would, they probably hope an arrangement can be found, more than anyone. As I said at beginning: "I still don't think Day's incoherence is last word on Con respect for democracy - too incredible." And the day before, the night of the Order's passage, in my rather important post, I concluded like so:

I have only recently defended the Cons from what I considered excessive comparisons to one totalitarianism. I cannot credit that they have indeed become such, or are even considering following that path. It would be the most perverse betrayal of Canadian conservatism. From Loyalists to this? Surely not. If any are so misguided as to even consider such a danger, I urge them to reflect well on the traditions of Canadian conservatism and reconsider. But in the still unlikely case, to me, at least, that they indeed pursue an authoritarian logic, they would be declaring war on Canadian democracy, and all democrats would be obliged to make war against them. I urge them not to. But should they, democrats must be as coherent and harsh in response as needed to defend Canadian democracy. Some, like the FLQ, attack democracy from without and are treated accordingly. Should the Cons follow the path of authoritarianism, they would be destroying democracy from within, and would need to be dealt with as harshly. Don't do it Cons, it would be a disaster for everyone and your names would live in infamy. Do the right, normal & established thing, respect our most basic law, and submit to Parliament. Since the advent of responsible government in 1848, no self-described conservative government has ever done otherwise.

As I mentioned, Casson's and others' announced departures were perhaps not unrelated to the issues at hand. I do not think it impossible that a good number of Con MPs agree with my advice: "And if any Con MPs are listening and still believe in the democratic ideals they once enunciated with such passion, this is the time to speak up in caucus and publicly and stand up for Canadian democracy. Why should your party and your country suffer just to protect a couple of selfish lying tossers?"

Now, I'm not saying they won't go to an election on this if they have to. But I suspect that a fairly solid majority of Con MPs are VERY reticent. They will not engage in any overt public dissent re. the PMO, but really, why should they pay for the possible errors of Harper, MacKay & O'Connor, not to mention Liberals like Graham, Pettigrew & Martin?

Obviously, whatever hurts the Leader and the CPC brand hurts them, and they don't want to give the Opposition parties any victories, so they're playing a double game. On the one hand, they are genuine about finding arrangements to obey the Speaker's Ruling, on the other, this apparent reasonableness might also serve them well as ploy to justify an election if it comes to that, as many have supposed is their real agenda. Far from contradictory, these are concurrent tactics. The CPC ministers & caucus are in some ways, for all sorts of motivations, caught between the PMO and the Opposition. In their view, for the good of the party and themselves, they can't defy the PMO. But on the other hand, they want to find an arrangement without giving the Opposition credit, because running against Parliament in an election would be awful on principle, and dangerous electorally. Sooner or later, Manning and the other OG Reformers would speak out. They're holding off in the hope arrangements are found and they don't have to - it may sound like Yogi Berra but it's true, technically, there's no contempt until there's contempt, ie. until House has formally voted contempt.

Any bluster, like Teneycke's, is designed to improve the CPC bargaining position. The Cons, naturally, want arrangements as favourable to themselves as possible. They are not about to walk into negotiations proclaiming their own complete subservience to the Speaker's Ruling. The NDP & Bloc, with their trade union links (Paquette, Duceppe, etc.), understand this as well. The Liberals do too, but know they must bridge the apparent, rather small gap. The LPC would suffer terribly if it was the only one to join CPC on this. On the other hand, they too would prefer to avoid an election. As would the NDP, given Layton's condition. And even the Bloc, as what do they gain from constant elections but exhaustion and possible defeat, one never knows. And on all sides, there is the pension issue too..."Should an election be called before June 24, 2010, 36 Conservatives (including five cabinet ministers), 16 Blocquistes, 14 Liberals and 8 New Democrats (including leader Jack Layton) would fail to qualify for their pension unless they were reelected."

It may be that the PMO is taking such a hard line because they are genuinely worried about "breaking" confidentiality agreements with other countries, or at least wants to be able to show Canada's partners they did all they could to keep things quiet. But I doubt it: every other country has already made most of this stuff public. It is hard not to think, knowing Bloodworth's daily briefings, that the PMO's concerns are more immediate.

Given the Harper-MacKay-O'Connor axis, and the spot that puts the CPC caucus and cabinet in, it is not impossible that the Cons are forced to overplay their hand and force an election, while being sophists and publicly claiming they were being reasonable and law-abiding. But whatever the PMO's agenda, that is not in the CPC's interest, and CPC MPs and ministers know it. And, as noted, it is also not in the Opposition parties' interests to force and election by seeming completely unreasonable. However, they have been excessively reasonable from the beginning, too much, for my taste, and they seem ready to continue to keep playing in good faith. This makes sense, for while I think an election over the Cons' refusal to accept democracy and obey Parliament would lead to the defeat of the CPC, through either an outright LPC plurality or a LPC-NDP plurality, that would only happen if the CPC were genuinely cheating, it was clearly so, and they would pay the price all campaign. When even the National Post editorial board is telling you to do the right thing, that is one awful narrative to fight with a bad conscience every day for six weeks.

The CPC should call an inquiry, allow the MPCC to do its work, and obey our oldest, most sacred law by demonstrating its respect for Parliament and democracy and turning the documents over to the Afghan committee. The first two are optional, the third is obligatory. On all sides the view is, an election if necessary, but not necessarily an election. The CPC has the most to lose. Its MPs are the most queasy, whence the over-compensation by its PMO-approved third-party attack dogs, trying to set the terms of debate and strengthen their negotiating position. Objectively, the Opposition has a very strong position, if they have the wit to use it. If they play fair but true, all will be well, either the documents are released in a satisfactory manner or the CPC shows itself to completely despicably illegitimate and the Opposition wins the subsequent election. But they must be smart, strong, coordinated as well as demonstrably reasonable, as this post advised.

Opposition, don't forget, many CPCers agree with you. Most are honourable men and women who don't see why their political careers should be in jeopardy to protect bad stupid selfish criminals. So play fair and true, and Parliament's victory will be complete. Either the documents are released, or the CPC is defeated. Simple as that.