Canada as Seen from Sri Lanka: It Ain't Pretty

Those not on Twitter may have missed this absolutely fabulous thrashing of John Baird and Stephen Harper by Dr Kamal Wickremasinghe writing in the Daily News, 'Sri Lanka's National Newspaper since 1918'.

Titled 'Harper and Baird should clean their own backyard before coming to CHOGM', it will warm the cockles of your heart while demonstrating how bloody low Canada has sunk in the world's opinion.

You should read the whole thing, but I'll excerpt some good bits.

The Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Foreign Minister John Baird are leading the charge against Sri Lanka as the venue for this year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in November. The language used by Harper and Baird, including references to “evil” and “appalling”, seems quite out of proportion to the significance of CHOGM as an international gathering, as well as its utility to Sri Lanka as perceived by Sri Lankans.

The snarling of the two men carry no weight because both have little credibility - Stephen Harper has never managed to win a national election in Canada in his own right, and resorts to the anti-democratic practice of proroguing whenever he is about to face difficult questions in Parliament; Baird is a buffoon, a former provincial politician and ‘wannabe’ future leader of the Conservatives trying to achieve his aim by kow-towing to the monied Israeli lobby in Canada. The two men, not known for their intelligence or subtlety in international affairs, are the butt of jokes among the Canadian media and bureaucracy.

(There was some chat on Twitter about what the good doctor meant by 'Harper has never managed to win a national election in Canada in his own right'. Does he know about Pierre Poutine? Or he is referring to the 'strong, stable, 39% majority'?)

So what has the Sri Lankans in such fine fettle? A little snit PMSHithead pulled at the last CHOGM.

Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper walked out of the summit during its last day when Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa was invited to speak. He also had threatened to boycott the 2013 CHOGM summit, scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka, if allegations of human rights abuses against the country's Tamil minority were not investigated.

From a couple of days ago:

Canadian foreign minister John Baird said Sri Lanka must launch an investigation into allegations of war crimes at the end of the country's civil war.

He said the Commonwealth is "accommodating evil" by affording Sri Lanka hosting duties and the nation has failed to live up to Commonwealth values of democracy, the rule of law and good governance

Which Dr Wickremasinghe finds a bit rich.

The bigger joke however, is the ridiculous attempt by Harper and Baird to assign some sort of global human rights guardianship to a remnant of colonialism like the so-called Commonwealth that represents a litany of mass murders, rape and dispossession of indigenous peoples throughout the world between the 16th and mid-20th centuries.

Harper’s and Baird’s attempts to assume leadership on human rights protection despite Canada’s disgraceful record of treatment of Indigenous peoples of that country is a subsidiary joke.

In fact, a look at the reasons behind the feigned fury of Harper and Baird over Sri Lanka last week shows that it is an attempt to divert attention from the international scrutiny of continuing human rights violations of the Indigenous peoples of Canada that began on April 26 at the UNHRC, under the second universal periodic review (UPR) of Canada.

The world has called the bluff of Canada’s self-righteous posturing as a country committed to protect human rights globally, by questioning the facts on their own treatment of the original owners of Canada being reported to the UNHRC - Russia expressed alarm over Canada’s “Police actions of torture and cruelty against peaceful demonstrators and China complained of “widespread racial discrimination in Canada.”

North Korea, perhaps mockingly, expressed serious concerns about “continued violations of the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, torture and other ill-treatment, racism and xenophobia” in Canada; Iran did likewise by referring to “child sexual exploitation and trafficking, the right to food, and discriminatory laws against Indigenous people and minority groups including Muslims, Arabs and African communities”; Egypt complained of “racial profiling of Muslims in law-enforcement action”; Cuba was concerned with “racism and xenophobia” in Canada.

There's much more, including First Nations appeals to the UNHRC, Canada's failure to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, violence against FN women and girls -- the 600 murdered and missing women are mentioned -- and so on.

A damning litany.

But the real fun is in the personal attacks..

John Baird is a walking, mumbling disaster

Harper’s Foreign Minister friend John Baird is a caricature of the loud-mouthed, incompetent, under-qualified politician the people in Western countries have come to despise - he “shoots from the hip” often, displaying appalling levels of insensitivity and tact, about matters relating to Israel in particular.

He also broke Canada’s Official Languages Act requirement of adherence to bilingual communication by government officials when he printed separate English and French language business cards.

While visiting Israel in February 2012, Baird affirmed Canada’s support for Israel’s extremist Likud Party’s opposition to Palestinian statehood. In September he announced the sudden closure of Canada’s embassy in Tehran and the expelling of all Iranian diplomats from Canada - from an APEC conference in Russia. Baird’s actions were praised by the war-hungry Benjamin Netanyahu who described them as “bold leadership.”

In April, Baird broke with the long-standing protocol of foreign officials not meeting Israeli counterparts in East Jerusalem, declared by the UN as occupied Palestinian land, when he met with Israeli politician Tzipi Livni at her East Jerusalem offices.

In November 2011, activists on board the Canadian Boat to Gaza outraged by Baird’s defence of the Israeli forces who had assaulted them told media that “If Minister Baird wants to put the interests of Israeli government before Canadians, he should apply for the job of Israel’s ambassador”.

Dr Wickremasinghe winds up:

Canada should clean its own backyard before preaching to Sri Lanka

As the UN Special Rapporteur Olivier De Schutter has pointed out, Canada can’t credibly preach human rights on the international stage when too many of its own citizens are going hungry, and Canada, would gain credibility only if it is irreproachable itself.
Canada could launch itself on the path by urgently attending to the following, before attending CHOGM -

· Adopt and fully implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples;

· Recognise and respect Aboriginal title and Aboriginal and treaty rights; end the policy of extinguishment; and repudiate the racist doctrines of Discovery and terra nullius;

· Stop criminalising Indigenous peoples for defending their rights; and

· Take action to investigate and end the ongoing murders and disappearances of Indigenous women.

Then we will consider welcoming Harper in Sri Lanka.

Oh, yes. In the immortal words of Prime Shithead himself: 'Canada is back in the bad books of the world'.


h/t CometsMum.

Workers' Memorial Day

Today is Workers' Memorial Day, and I didn't know this:

Workers' Memorial Day was started by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) in 1984. The Canadian Labour Congress declared an annual day of remembrance in 1985 on April 28, which is the anniversary of a comprehensive Workers Compensation Act (refer to the entry Workplace Safety & Insurance Board), passed in 1914. In 1991, the Canadian Parliament passed an Act respecting a National Day of Mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace, making April 28 an official Workers’ Mourning Day.

As I know well, workers are killed or maimed on the job every day.

But this past week, there have been two huge industrial 'accidents' that cannot be explained by any factor other than PROFIT over people.

These events sure are different in the reactions they've engendered.

Already, a long list of safety violations at the Texas fertilizer plant is being compiled, including this wowser.

Reuters reported last Saturday that the plant had on site 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate. This is 1,350 times the amount that would require a facility to self-report its stockpile to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

No inspections, shoddy records, laughably small fines, and more.

Think this is bad? Ramit Plushnick-Masti and Jack Gillum, reporting for the AP, note that: “There were no sprinklers. No firewalls. No water deluge systems.” Without such basic fire suppression systems, once the plant started to go, it was almost unstoppable, and the fire spread quickly through the facility without any walls to keep it in check. This made the accident even more devastating than it could have been, and endangered the lives of first responders who arrived on scene to help victims.

An investigation is ongoing into the circumstances of this terrible event, but the outcome of that investigation is already obvious: overworked government agencies failed to catch a serious safety problem, and negligence on the part of a factory owner resulted in the development of hazardous conditions.

The question is: will he be held accountable, and will Congress take a critically-needed lesson here and increase funding to government agencies charged with our safety?

Also, look where the plant is located. Not exactly a wise result of sane zoning regulations.


In Bangladesh, where perhaps there is less laissez in their acceptance of rapacious capitalist faire, the wanton negligence and greed that killed hundreds of people in a building collapse has generated protests.

Hundreds of thousands of garment workers walked out of their factories in Bangladesh Thursday, police said, to protest the deaths of 200 [since updated to well over 300] people in a building collapse, in the latest tragedy to hit the sector.

Grief turned to anger as the workers, some carrying sticks, blockaded key highways in at least three industrial areas just outside the capital Dhaka, forcing factory owners to declare a day’s holiday.

And more action -- arrests

The owner of an illegally constructed building that collapsed last week in a deadly heap in a Dhaka suburb was arrested at a border crossing with India on Sunday, a government minister said.

. . . [Mohammed Sohel] Rana, a small-time politician from the ruling party, had been on the run since Wednesday. He had appeared in front of Rana Plaza on Tuesday after huge cracks appeared in the structure. However, he assured tenants, including five garment factories, that the building was safe.

A bank and some shops on the first floor shut their premises on Wednesday after police ordered an evacuation, but managers of the garment factories on the upper floor told workers to continue their shifts.

And more arrests.

So, while we in the West wring our hands over our complicity in our demand for cheap clothes and make fine distinctions on how low safety standards in other countries could justifiably be, I'm finding it simply stunning that there is not more direct, head-to-head comparison of the two events.

They are remarkably similar. Greedy capitalists offer shitty work to disadvantaged people. Greedy capitalists locate their operations without any regard for the community. Greedy capitalists flout rules and regulations. Complicit or overworked regulators do nothing.

People die.

Maybe the good people of West, Texas, are preparing some humungous lawsuits. Because otherwise, they don't seem all that exercised. Sad, sure. Angry, not so much.

Happy Workers' Memorial Day.



ADDED: A good read on the garment industry in Bangladesh.

All the declinations of terrorism.

 

On Monday Harper's Politburo staged a nimble bit of Kabuki theatre, as my co-blogger dubbed it.

No longer content to exploit Canadian children and their families for PMSHithead's photo ops, the PMO rallied RCMP resources in support of an emergency debate on Vic Toews' testerical bill for Combatting Terrorism. Alison at Creekside has everything you need to know about the Harper government Con job in this regard: the background, the public histrionics, the tactics.

And now, this:

Internal e-mails obtained by CBC News show that RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has ordered all senior Mounties to get clearance from his office before committing to any meetings with MPs or senators.

Specifically, they are to notify a liaison office that co-ordinates RCMP strategy with the office of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has instructed senior Mounties to notify his office before accepting meetings with MPs and senators, similar to the approval required for his own meetings by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews last year.

In an email dated March 22 from Paulson to more than 50 chief superintendents, assistant commissioners and deputy commissioners, the commissioner said that meetings or lunches with parliamentarians "can have unintended and/or negative consequences for the organization and the Government.

The development has opposition critics accusing the government of undermining the independence of the police. "There's a very large pattern in this government of trying to control information," said NDP MP Randall Garrison.

RCMP commissioner not 'muzzled,' Toews says.

"It's not appropriate for the government to reach into the police operation. It's a very, very fundamental part of what we must be assured exists so that the police aren't doing the work of the government, they're doing the work of the public."

Garrison, who is the NDP critic for public safety, said "these memos raise some very serious concerns about whether the government is interfering in the operations of the RCMP to try and assist in controlling their political message. So I think it's very serious."

Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell, critic for an RCMP reform bill, C-42, said he feared the "politicization of the police force."

From here.

In preparing this post, I reviewed news items about the RCMP covered by MacLeans. 

First, beyond the ongoing, systemic, violent misogyny within the force and in the field, this "incident" struck me as quite symptomatic of the noxious, agonic macho culture of the RCMP.

The document says Const. Martin Simpson wired an SD-100 soft detonator inside the doll “with the assistance and planning” of fellow squad member Cpl. Nigel Blake while Hempston was away on Christmas holidays. The detonators, “classified as high explosives,” were seized when a film company tried to import them in 2003. RCMP Cpl. Annie Linteau, speaking for B.C.’s E-Division headquarters, offered a markedly different account in an statement, saying an unnamed RCMP member had a “low energy” pyrotechnic squib detonate in his hand. “The member was transported to hospital for treatment with superficial injuries.”

When Hempston returned from holidays, he noticed the doll on his desk had been tampered with and picked it up with both hands. It exploded when he turned it on. Among the severe injuries he sustained, according to the lawsuit: damage to his hands that required several surgeries, nerve damage and a loss of feeling in his fingers and thumb, carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands, hearing loss requiring hearing aids, tinnitus in both ears, chronic post-traumatic stress, anxiety, nervous shock and “loss of faith in his colleagues.”

The supposed prank raises a number of troubling issues: the cavalier handling of explosives by the elite 14-member disposal unit; the decision not to charge the perpetrators, although an independent police investigation recommended criminal charges; the fact that Hempston continues to work in a tense environment with colleagues he is suing in a bomb unit that demands teamwork.

From here.

This is how a RCMP officer threatened and abused Ashley Smith. 

Instead of investigating spousal abuse, which is a form of gendered terrorism when enforced by individual sociopathic males whose actions are implicitly sanctioned by authorities, the RCMP set up a sting operation to entrap the female victim.

This occured in the same province where the alleged group rape and cyber-harassment of Rehtaeh Parsons was desultorily investigated by the RCMP. 

DJ! also posted about serious miscarriages of justice, at the hands of the RCMP.

So. Who will be carrying out and enforcing the provisions of S-7?

The RCMP.  As Alison put it:

Let's suppose you know someone, perhaps your landlord or a colleague at work, that the government suspects may one day in the future commit an act of terrorism. You can be detained for up to 3 days without charge while being questioned. You don't get to hear, let alone challenge, any evidence given against you or your colleague, even if it's tortured out of someone you've never heard of in Syria, and you can be held without trial for a year if you don't co-operate.

Every one of us is as vulnerable and exposed as this man was, merely for contacting Harper's office to register his opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Who needs the Spanish Inquisition when Harper's Politburo, or "The Centre" has the RCMP to do its bidding? 

A Coup for Parliament or a Recruiting Tool for CHP

As we know, Warwara's Wank ended with a further wank, this one about Free Speech.

The long-awaited Speaker's decision on his point of privilege over having his member's statement (S.O.30) snuffed by the CON Whip was announced yesterday at around 3 p.m.

Here's Kady O'Malley's story filed at 4:57 p.m.

If backbench MPs want to the right to speak freely in the House, they're going to have to start standing up to be counted -- even if it means ignoring the speaking lists prepared by the party whip to compete against their caucus colleagues for the attention of the speaker. 

That, it seems, is the gist of House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer's much-anticipated ruling on the point of privilege raised by Conservative MP Mark Warawa after his pre-Question Period speaking slot was abruptly yanked by his party's whip due to his choice of subject -- specifically, his similarly scuttled attempt to bring a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion before the House.

Although he ultimately found that no prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, Scheer made it clear that, as far as he and his predecessors are concerned, the speaker has never ceded the right to choose which member should be recognized -- not just during the fifteen minute block designated for members' statements, but, in theory, during QP as well. He just hasn't yet been put in a position where he would have to do so, as -- again, at least as yet --  no members have ever attempted to circumvent the whip-created list.

So, fans of the Westminster parliamentary system parsed that all to hell, gleefully anticipating little bobble-heads bobbing up and down trying to catch the eye of the venerable 33-year-old Speaker.

The more cynical of course wondered just how much eye-catching Opposition members might have to mount. Clown-costumes wouldn't be out of place, after all.

Other cynics wondered if this really meant anything at all.

Funny, though, not much attention at all was paid to this story filed by John Ivison at 11:13 yesterday morning, about 4 hours before the decision.

John Ivison: Ruling on alleged breach of Warawa’s privilege to speak freely could head off Tory rebellion

But there are rumblings in caucus that Mr. Scheer may make a significant additional ruling by pointing to the Westminster example, where it is a long established convention that the Speaker has the right to recognize members from either side of the House when they stand during Question Time. In the British House of Commons, a number of MPs bob up and down at any given time, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, and it is up to the chair to recognize them. The inference would be that if more than one MP stands up during members’ statements and Question Period, they could be recognized by the Speaker, whether they are on the whips’ list or not.

If Mr. Scheer leans towards the Westminster model, it could have profound implications in both the short and long term governance of the House. It would also suggest he will not find Mr. Warawa’s privilege was breached, since he could have been recognized by the speaker if he’d only stood up to speak at members’ statements.

In the short-term, it could head off a rebellion in the Conservative caucus that threatens to culminate in some Tories voting alongside the Liberals. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has introduced a motion to allocate members’ statements in alphabetical order which will reach the House on Wednesday and, absent some kind of significant reform, a number of Tory MPs may be tempted to signal their displeasure.

So, at least four hours in advance, senator-in-waiting Ivison was tipped to the outcome.

And indeed, the Speaker's ruling does have the salubrious effect of quelling the now pretty-well defunct Backbenchers Spring.

As the Church Lady would say: How conveeeenient.

Political shenangigans in the Speaker's Office!?!1???

Say it ain't so.

Now of course the question is which of the intrepid backbenchers will get up on their hind legs and attempt to speak to an unapproved topic -- like abortion, for example?

@fernhilldammit It's actually pretty close in structure to the UK model. We'll see if he actually sticks to it.

— E (@freezingkiwi) April 23, 2013

(I've bet @freezingkiwi that his kiwis will really freeze before that happens.)

Will only the nutbars avail themselves of this privilege ignominious display? Will more sensible, team-playing BBers keep shtum and/or clap their flippers as they read the usual 'job-killing carbon tax' talking points ad nauseum?

I wondered if Speaker Scheer had offered any protection -- kinda like whistle-blower protection -- for retribution from vengeful whips and leaders.

According to Mark Jarvis, author of Democratizing the Constitution:

@fernhilldammit @thomashall17 nothing.

— mark d. jarvis (@markdjarvis) April 24, 2013

Retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Thomas Hall, went further.

@fernhilldammit @markdjarvis Yep!The pwr to sign nomination papers needs to be removed from party leaders and returned to riding assocs.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 24, 2013

It's down to party constitutions. And ipso fatso, only future Christian Heritage Party candidates will partake.

ADDED: For all of you breathless with anticipation as to what Free Speech Warrior and Defender of Girls, Mark Warawa, would say in his totally unfettered S.O. 31 today -- behold! (I swear you can't make this shit up.)

UPDATE (April 26/13): How successful was Speaker Scheer in quelling the Backbench Revolt? Perfectly. Not one BBer voted for the Liberal motion to choose MPs to make member's statements by alphabetical order.

There *Must* Be Gosnells

For non-Tweeps, there's this hilariousness going on.

Ever since the Gosnell trial began, fetus fetishists have been wanking themselves into gore-fuelled paroxysms of prurient joy.

Sadly, though, Canadian fetus fetishists are missing out.

Despite SUZYALLCAPS's obsession (I got bored counting at 30 blogposts here: http://www.bigbluewave.ca/search?q=gosnell&updated-max=2013-04-14T22:06:00-04:00&max-results=20&start=20&by-date=false), unaccountably, Canada has produced no Gosnells.

Though it darned well should, according to HER. (I can't embed HER tweets because she has me blocked.)






Claudine Jacques observes:

With the procedure funded and decent access #Gosnell would have no reason to operate in Canada. Makes antis furious. #m408

— Claudine Jacques (@ClaudineJacques) April 21, 2013

By their logic, Canada has no law on abortion, therefore Gosnells should abound on every street corner in the land.

BLAAAAT! Wrong.

Canada's lawlessness is the very reason we don't have Gosnells. And the obverse is equally true.

It is precisely the expense, stigma, regulations and general bullshit gleefully generated by USian 'prolifers' that create the perfect conditions for the very embodiment of olde-timey backstreet butchers like Gosnell.

But they can't admit that or their heads will explode.

The Terrists Win

April 17, 1984, was the first full day of my first visit to London. My pal and I were near St James Square, just wandering around, pretty jet-laggedy stupid. I was finding the noise really quite jarring, then it seemed to jump up several zillion decibels. Sirens.

We didn't know at the time but the Libyan Embassy Siege had begun a couple streets from where we were.

In minutes, it seemed, helicopters were hovering and loud-speakers were telling people to get off the rooftops.

And the sirens wailed.

My pal was excited and wanted to hang around. Me, I was thinking IRA, as was no doubt just about everyone. I said: 'I'd like to go home with all my limbs. Let's get out of here.'

Later, in our B&B, we learned what had happened and what would continue over our entire visit.

People talked about it, it was covered extensively on telly and in the newspapers, but it didn't stop anything. Brits were a bit more exercised about this event because a London bobby -- a female bobby -- had been killed, but otherwise, it was business as usual.

Dumbass tourists like us continued wandering around the city, visiting museums and churches and galleries. We took a Thames River boat trip, went to a West End play. We bought tourist crap and ate the amazingly awful food. (Meals usually went like this: 'Taste this.' 'What is it?' 'Who the hell knows? That's why I want you to taste it.')

In other words, we had a totally normal London visit, except for the siege bit going on in a corner of Belgravia.

I don't mean to glamourize the British stiff upper lip, but really. This past week, USians have given terrorists and trouble-makers in general a text-book lesson on how to paralyze a city.

And isn't it telling that the Boston suspect was found after the 'shelter in place' order was lifted and a resident went out into his backyard to have a smoke and noticed blood on the outside of his boat?

Acting normally is what nabbed the guy.

But. Whatever. Carry on.

BONUS: Thoughtful piece on USians going insane over terrorism but finding 'normal' gun violence perfectly okey-dokey.

In Harper and CON universe, bullies rule. (Part 2)

 

The opposition has raised questions about former RCMP Bruno Saccomani's qualification given this, another Harper patronage appointment, as the Canadian ambassador to Jordan.

[...] NDP international development critic Helene Laverdiere, herself a former diplomat, said there is no reason to believe Saccomani has the skills required to fill such an important ambassadorial position.

“At the moment it is one of the hottest region in the world,” she told reporters in French. “We have specialists, professionals who have been in the diplomatic service for years who know the issues who know how to represent Canada more adequately. … This is certainly not someone who has the skills for a position in an area as sensitive as that.”

Bloc Quebecois MP Andre Bellavance alleged the only reason Saccomani received the appointment was because of “his proximity to the prime minister.”

In a previous post, DJ! linked to this, with regard to Saccomani's "diplomatic skills":

The management review report, published in January [2012], paints a grim picture of on-the-job morale for the 117 Mounties who protect the Harpers around the world and across Canada.

"The (review) team found that the examples of conflict in the workplace, harassment, discrimination, intimidation and perceived favouritism given during the interviews were disturbing," says the report.

Evaluators interviewed 41 per cent of the protection unit in December, and found a majority of officers had issues with their supervisor — Supt. Bruno Saccomani. [...]

Some complained about being reprimanded in front of their peers or in public. Mounties reported they felt they were "walking on eggshells" or feared repercussions following the review.

Saccomani appears to have his ardent fans though; look how they gush over him.

Guy Giorno, Harper's former chief of staff, said he's suspected RCMP brass have had Saccomani in their sights for a while.
"This is exactly what the brass was looking for -- to put a bullet into Bruno," he said. "They were happy about this."

Since then, it appears the RCMP have changed their opinion of Saccomani.  Medication taken to curb aggressiveness?  Insider knowledge, applied judiciously to his advantage?

"In his most recent annual performance review, dated March 28 and obtained by Postmedia News, Saccomani receives glowing praise from his manager."

I would guess that Tom Flanagan knows where Saccomani's RCMP manager lives.

More about Harper Cons and their hogs at the trough patronage appointments, at Sixth Estate's blog.

In Harper and CON universe, bullies rule.

Two recent news items regarding the regard PMSHithead has for certain types of people.

First: Shirish Chotalia.

[Public Service Integrity Commissioner Mario Dion] called Chotalia's behaviour "totally unacceptable" and said that in his nearly 2½ years on the job, he's never come across a worse case of behaviour towards employees that shows a "total lack of respect."

He said Chotalia created a "poisoned atmosphere" in the workplace, and that her manner towards not just her staff but to appointed members of the tribunal was often "belittling and humiliating."

Some of Chotalia's behaviour, described in the report, bordered on the bizarre.

Chotalia ordered an employee to wear a set of keys around [their] neck despite complaints it was too heavy. During an earthquake in Ottawa in June 2010, which shook buildings, she refused to allow employees to leave their offices, despite the fact that many buildings in downtown Ottawa were evacuated. "Ms. Chotalia instead proceeded with her own swearing-in ceremony that she had organized that afternoon despite the safety requirements and staff concerns," the report said.

Chotalia's abusive behaviour was not limited to actions against her employees, but also tactically targeted individuals that her boss directed her to malign.

Then, Bruno Saccomani. 

Canada's new ambassador to Jordan comes to this patronage appointment with mixed reviews.  One can only speculate that he knows where *Pierre Poutine* is actually buried.

Given the Harper CPC operating mode, in the House of Commons, in government and internationally, is to bully, is it any surprise that such individuals are praised and promoted?

UPDATE: Chotalia's partisan quasi-legal bullying has been thrown out by the Federal Court, with regard to the case cited above.

In a much-anticipated ruling Wednesday morning, the court has rejected the federal government's attempts to prevent First Nations groups from arguing for better funding for child welfare on reserves.

The ruling means First Nations and the federal government will have a full-blown hearing about whether Ottawa is treating native children unfairly.

"It's a real victory for all the children who have waited so long for this," said Cindy Blackstock, who heads the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and spearheaded the legal challenge.

First Nations groups say Ottawa is discriminating against native kids because the support the feds provide for child welfare on reserves is much lower than what kids off reserves get from provincial governments – even though the need is greater.[...]

[The Harper government] tried to block the case on technicalities, saying it was not fair to compare federal services to provincial services.

Also, un grand merci to BloozGuy who tipped me off to the Bruno Saccomani news items.

Brave Mark Warawa ^NOT

Been away from the fray for a bit, so to catch up.

Warawa's Wank is toast.

Conservative MP Mark Warawa is dropping his bid for a vote on his motion to condemn sex-selective abortion, an issue that caused several MPs to split with the rest of the party's caucus in recent weeks.

Warawa told reporters on his way into the House of Commons that he is tabling a bill tomorrow that deals with sex offenders who serve house arrest in the same neighbourhoods as their victims, revictimizing them when they encounter each other in the community.

Another brave stand. Warawa demands: Do you stand with the sex offenders or with chastised MPs?

Fetus fetishists are not amused.

In a press release Wednesday, Campaign Life Coalition said they were “very disappointed” that the political pressure used against Warawa’s motion left him where it did.

“We thank Mark Warawa for raising the issue of lethal discrimination against women and girls through sex-selective abortion in Canada,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, CLC’s National Organizer. “It is a shame that this motion was killed.”

We Need a Law (Like a Hole in the Head) puts on a virtuoso display of wooing support (emphasis mine).

“The completely unfounded fear that somehow an expression of Parliament condemning this practice might in some way send women to the back alleys of Canadian cities with coat hangers speaks to the low level of intellect of most Canadian politicians. By their actions, they are avoiding, and in fact tacitly accepting, the very serious global problem of gendercide,” continued Schouten."

Meanwhile, at SUZYALLCAPS' Magisterium of Fetal Gore Porn, not one word about M408. All Gosnell-wanking, all the time.

http://www.bigbluewave.ca/search?q=gosnell

Meanwhile, some are still desperately trying to spin this petulant foot-stomping revolt as some kinda democratic reawakening, even dubbing it The Backbench Spring.

After Question Period today, Conservative MPs Michael Chong and Pierre Lemieux stood in the House and expressed their support for Mark Warawa’s question of privilege. Their statements are below.

This makes eight Conservative backbenchers who have spoke up in this regard: Warawa, Chong, Lemieux, Leon Benoit, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback, Stephen Woodworth and John Williamson. Rod Bruinooge, as well, seemed at least open to the idea of change.

The involvement of Mr. Chong, who has pushed for QP reform, would seem to undermine the idea that this is merely a pro-life cause masquerading as a push for parliamentary reform—he voted for Motion 312, but said at the time that he was not in favour of banning abortion and Campaign Life Coalition considers him “not supportable.”

While clear-eyed Alison calls any Backbenchers' Spring officially over.

Mosey over to her place for a fun singalong.

The CON game continues. They'd rather be re-elected than stand up for what they supposedly believe in.

We hope so-cons are taking note.