News of the raid first broke on CBC Newsworld Tuesday and other media quickly arrived on the scene. Liberal staffers from the Liberal research bureau, which is one block away from the Conservative party headquarters, then followed with a video camera to record the event.
Several Conservatives expressed suspicion Wednesday that the media and Liberals were made aware of the raid. Liberals insist they learned of it by watching television. CBC News has not yet said how they became aware of the raid.
“I do find it odd when I look at a photograph as I did this morning, and I see someone knocking on the door with cameras, news cameras present, and to see that there were Liberal party people in the hallway,” said Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.
“I find that very strange indeed. This is I gather some sort of enforcement warranted activity that was being undertaken. In my life as a lawyer in the courts of Canada, I'm not used to the media being along with officers carrying out their duties. It's rather unusual actually.”
Obviously, Flaherty has never watched COPS.
Ontario Tory MP David Tilson made similar remarks.
“Why are they picking on the Conservatives?” asked Mr. Tilson. “It's very suspicious.”
Well, nail Harper to a cross and give him a crown of thorns.
- So, I was watching CBC teevee's live coverage of Rick Hillier's testimony about Afghanistan to the foreign affairs committee which was interrupted by a news conference about the horrendous murders in Merritt, B.C. this past weekend. Since CBC didn't resume its coverage of Hillier, I thought I'd check out the site of the foreign affairs committee only to discover this. Besides the title and the 'Home' and 'Francais' buttons, there's nothing else there. I know the Cons enjoy screwing around with the committees as outlined in their 'dirty tricks' manual that was revealed last year, but scrubbing a committee website is a bit much - even for them. If someone can find an actual working page for this committee, let me know.
- RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George has been found guilty of contempt of parliament. That's as far as it goes though. It's just a slap on the wrist. I guess perjury isn't that big of a deal anymore.
- Despite the news today that industry minister Prentice has blocked the sale of the MDA space division to an American interest, MDA isn't giving up. Will the tories cave? I'm betting yes.
- The roadkill queen over at smalldeadanimals.com (who won't get a direct link from me) is being sued for libel - along with a few other Canadian wingnuts. My heart does not bleed for any of them. What goes around comes around. Canada's Michelle Malkin wannabe is raising money for her 'legal defence fund' but won't even say how much she's received or what her defence actually is - besides a big whine fest about how horribly persecuted she is. Sucks to be you guys but that's what you get when you constantly spew fearmongering venom day in and day out. Right-wingers were just full of glee when they heard that their dear leader was suing the Liberal party over the Cadman affair. But when one of their own finds themselves having to defend against a libel suit, all of a sudden the laws are so unfair! (Call the wahmbulance.) Some of the commenters over at the roadkill site are even trying to track down the complainant's home address - a tried and true Malkin technique - while others seem to think there's some sort of criminal case to be made against him. For filing a lawsuit? Really bright legal minds over there. Not.
While Verner appeared ready to negotiate with artists, not all Tories were in such a conciliatory mood.
In the press release, the Conservatives took specific aim at Polley. She has been a vocal NDP supporter and once lost a pair of teeth when the riot squad aggressively broke up an anti-Mike Harris demonstration outside of the Ontario Legislature.
"Individuals with vested personal and political interests should be honest with Canadians on what their true intentions are,'" said Pierre Poilievre, an Ottawa-area MP.
"Hard-working Canadians are growing increasingly tired of special interest groups telling them what to do."
Especially the bedwetters in your party's back pocket, Mr Poilievre.
Speaking of bedwetters, I see Charles McVeety of the so-called Canada Family Action Coalition is whining about this issue on CBC's Politics. He seems to be quite concerned over the film "The Masturbator". Mind you, I think he just really likes saying "Masturbator" in public. You know how those repressed conservative types are. Then again, maybe he's just worried about folks going blind.
Using the terms "treason" and "high crimes and misdemeanors", NDP MP Pat Martin told Craig Oliver on Sunday's Question Period that he will not introduce a motion to the ethics committee this week, as he had previously promised, to investigate the alleged $1 million bribe to now-deceased MP Chuck Cadman. Instead, Martin said that he thinks the RCMP should handle the file because any Conservatives involved in the affair who would testify before the committee would be protected by parliamentary privilege (ie. their testimony could not be used against them in a criminal prosecution). Martin left open the possibility of having the ethics committee hold hearings at a later date, following the results of the RCMP probe.
Well, the good news is that things could be much worse. But the bad news is that our privacy rights are slipping.
According to the 2007 Privacy International report, Canada's overall rating is summed up by the statement, "Some safeguards but weakened protection". (See the site for a map and summaries for the surveillance status of 46 other countries. Could be worse - we could be the US which received a black rating as an "Endemic surveillance society").
Here's their general breakdown on Canada's status:
CANADA
* Privacy not mentioned in Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but courts have recognised the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy * Statutory rules at the federal level (public and private sectors) and provincial laws apply to sectors and governments * Federal commission is widely recognised as lacking in powers such as order-marking powers, and ability to regulate trans-border data flows * Variety of provincial privacy commissioners have made privacy-enhancing decisions and taken cases through the courts over the past year (particularly Ontario) * Court orders required for interception and there is no reasonable alternative method of investigation * Video surveillance is spreading despite guidelines from privacy commissioners * Highly controversial no-fly list, lacking legal mandate * Continues to threaten new policy on online surveillance * Increased calls for biometric documents to cater for U.S. pressure, while plans are still unclear for biometric passports
We do have one of the highest ratings along with Greece and Romania according to the report's findings, but we obviously still have a lot of room for improvement and we definitely have to maintain the privacy rights that we do have while not allowing our provincial and federal governments to chip away at them as too many conservative governments would like to in the name of the GWOT which they like to claim is for our own good. Revamping the RCMP should also be aimed at protecting our rights considering the horrible way it handled the Maher Arar situation in its attempt to "cooperate" with US intelligence agencies.
Both Britain and the United States fell into the lowest-performing group of "endemic surveillance societies."
"The general trend is that privacy is being extinguished in country after country," said Simon Davies, director of Privacy International. "Even those countries where we expected ongoing strong privacy protection, like Germany and Canada, are sinking into the mire.
"I'm afraid that Canada has kind of lost the plot a plot a little bit this year and hence its move downwards," Davies told the Canadian Press in comments about Canada.
He cites the C-I-A's accessing the banking records of Canadians through the SWIFT banking information system, the Canadian no-fly list, and the Toronto Transit Commission's installation of security cameras as examples of the erosion of privacy rights.
He also decried the increasing number of programs involving the United States, which he said unfortunately has no federal privacy law.
"What's happening, is that Canadian information, sensitive information, is flowing across the border in increasing volumes," Davies said.
"Frankly, that's the sort of situation where government should put pressure on the U.S. government to protect that information legally," he said, "But it's not doing so."
The report came two days after Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart warned in a release that 2008 will be "another challenging one for privacy in Canada."
"Heightened national security concerns, the growing business appetite for personal information and technological advances are all potent - and growing - threats to privacy rights," Stoddart said.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
Nothing to see here, folks. Trust us. We know what we're doing.
Right.
And here's what Steve thinks about the democratic right to protest:
Asked about the protests against the summit, Mr. Harper told reporters as he greeted Mr. Bush, "I heard it's nothing," then added. "It's sad."
That didn't stop him from acting like a huge chickenshit though:
Mr. Harper was accompanied in the cavalcade of carts by security personnel and members of his staff, some hanging on for dear life as the tiny vehicles whipped their way up the hotel's main drive.
Harper greeted the tanned president outside the majestic Chateau Montebello resort as he arrived here for the start of the North American leaders’ summit.
“Geez, you’ve got a small army with you there,” quipped Harper as he clapped Bush on the shoulder and shook his hand.
“Yeah,” said Bush. “Sorry I’m late. Beautiful place here.”
The two exchanged handshakes, and as a reporter asked Bush whether he had seen the protests, he glanced over his shoulder and grinned.
The obnoxious boy king grin, no doubt.
And yes, there are some "anarchist" type protesters in the vicinity - which hardly explains Bush's need for a "small army".
As for the agenda and why people are protesting:
One common complaint echoed by all is the secrecy surrounding the meeting.
A group of powerful business executives has been invited to make a closed-door presentation Tuesday at the summit on changes they believe the continent needs. No such invitation was extended to scientists, environmentalists, or other social activists.
Welcome to Corporate North America™ where that pesky democracy thing is just an annoying sideshow.
Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians said people shouldn’t be fooled about who really sets the agenda at these summits: the 30 business leaders who sit on the North American Competitiveness Council.
The group comprises leaders from 10 companies in each country and includes corporations like Wal-Mart, General Electric and weapons-maker Lockheed Martin. They advise the three national governments on facilitating trade.
Barlow called for a moratorium on the “profoundly anti-democratic” North American Security and Prosperity Partnership until the citizens of all three countries are consulted and their elected representatives are given oversight over the business-driven initiative.
Flanked by U.S and Mexican opponents of the scheme and Canadian labour activists, Barlow told a news conference Monday that big business is trying to create a competitive North American trade bloc.
“And for this they need regulatory, resource, labour and environmental convergence to the lowest common standards,” she said, predicting that it will ultimately include a common passport, common currency and free trade in resources, including oil, gas and water.
“This is not about security for people, social security, security for the poor, environmental security or job security. This is about security for the big corporations for North America.”
And you definitely can't count of the Liberal or Democratic parties to seriously oppose the corporate regime. They're too beholden to corporate money and lobby groups.
This is what our so-called leaders think about the voices of the people:
Harper refuses to receive SPP petitions at Leaders Summit in Montebello
Ottawa – The RCMP has been informed by the Department of Foreign Affairs that the delivery of a petition to the Leaders Summit in Montebello, which was signed by more than 10,000 Canadians across the country, will be prohibited.
The RCMP had previously told the Council of Canadians that the petitions could be delivered just outside the gates of the Chateau Montebello, which is being heavily guarded by Canadian and American security forces.
“This is clearly not a security concern but a political prohibition,” says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “This is yet another strong message from the Conservative government that they are not willing to hear the concerns of Canadians on the Security and Prosperity Partnership.”
Once again, the RCMP is doing the political bidding of the Conservative party/ Canadian government.
If you're not concerned about what's going on in Montebello, you need to be.
Do you want to live in a corporate state or a truly democratic state?
TORONTO, OTTAWA — The civilian appointed to lead Canada's national police into a new era of accountability revealed Friday he was among the secret group of bureaucrats who had met to censor findings of the Maher Arar report.
“I was certainly involved in the process leading to that decision, but that decision was a decision taken by government,” RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, wearing a business suit, told reporters after the RCMP's change-of-command ceremony. He was referring to work he had done while serving as an associate deputy minister to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.
And Day, being the arrogant, feckless ass that he is, sent his spokespuppet out to say this:
A spokeswoman for Mr. Day, the past and current boss of Mr. Elliott, said “senior officials from various departments” decided to block out the passages before the government signed off on the recommendations.
I guess his momma never asked him the obvious question: "would you jump off a bridge just because the rest of the kids were doing it?" Or maybe she did and his answer was "yes".
Welcome to the new RCMP brought to you by the new government. I'll bet you feel safer already.
As one who also covers American politics and the battles between congress, the White House and organizations like the ACLU over claims of executive privilege wrapped in the mantra of national security, I have to say that Canada's system appears to place us light years ahead when it comes to demanding and getting transparency in these types of cases (although sometimes these victories can take a very long time to be realized). That type of regime of secrecy cannot and will not be tolerated in this country, as much as Stephen Harper's paranoid Conservative government wishes to make it so.
I recently had the occasion to reread the Reader's Digest 2006 interview with Stephen Harper, Man With a Plan, in which he was asked about the comparisons made between him and Bush. Note his cluelessness:
RD: Are there comparisons that offend you?
Harper: Yes. The Bush comparisons offend me. And not because I have any kind of personal dislike of George W. Bush. I don’t. It’s that the comparisons generally are not thoughtful. Bush has SUVs in his motorcade, and I have SUVs in my motorcade—“Ha ha, he’s just like George Bush.” Well, of course, this is actually the decision of the RCMP, and I’m sure George Bush didn’t pick out the cars in his own motorcade either. That kind of thing bothers me because it’s just a stereotype designed for polemical purposes.
No, Steve, you're compared to Bush because of your love of absolute control and as these new Arar inquiry revelations show us, that hammer you like to bring down on the Canadian people by fighting against things that might embarrass security or other officials implies a twisted sort of reasoning that is well beyond what most Canadians ought to find acceptable.
One would think that, when it comes to ensuring the safety of all Canadians, allowing us to finally see the inner workings of CSIS and the RCMP and how they contributed to an innocent man being tortured would be considered to be an absolute necessity so the same behaviour will never be repeated again. We cannot rely on our security agencies to police themselves, obviously, and as the interviewees point out, the current oversight regime is "fractured".
The Harper government's attempt to cover that up serves no one except those who prefer to remain complicit in such human rights abuses. That was the bottom line in arguing that these documents remain censored. The revelations do not pose a threat to our national security. Not revealing those portions however had the potential to enable CSIS and the RCMP to continue ignoring their own, very serious problems.
In the inquiry report, RCMP officials seemed to be tripping all over themselves to claim that they hadn't worked with the CIA prior to 9/11 - as if that was a good enough excuse to not understand how the CIA operates. And of course we now know that CSIS knew about the CIA's extraordinary rendition (torture flights) practices and still either naively trusted the CIA or just didn't care enough to ensure a Canadian citizen's rights would be protected. The official line seems to be that the CIA just pulled a fast one of Canadian security officials who supposedly had years of experience. How can that possibly be justified and what kind of prime minister would choose to cover that up?
Harper needs to be reminded at every turn that he works for the Canadian people, not his own interests or those of people who have the power to place our lives in jeopardy.
As Alex Neve said, keep the pressure on your MPs and government officials by letting them know that we will not put up with this subversion of our right to know the facts. We will not allow Harper to operate as Bush Lite.
Newly released portions of the Arar Inquiry report which had previously been censored - apparently to protect CSIS, the CIA, the FBI and the RCMP - show that Canadian security officials knew that information they relied on that damned Arar to a one year stay via "extraordinary rendition" in a Syrian jail had been obtained through the use of torture and that he most likely would be tortured as well.
The Globe and Mail offers the following summary but you can read the documents here (.pdf file - the previously censored material is highlighted by bold text).
Newly declassified findings of Judge O'Connor's report indicate a host of foreign agencies shoulder the blame for what happened:
• Investigating Mounties had no experience in dealing with the CIA before 2001, but a relationship began to develop after the Sept. 11 attacks that year.
• As anticipated, information from abroad – likely the statements by Mr. El Maati* – found its way into Canadian searches and interviews conducted in January, 2002. "When applying for search warrants, Project A-O Canada relied on information obtained from a country with a poor human rights record." The report adds that "no assessment was made of the reliability of that information."
• In the fall of 2002, the information was still being treated as credible. "In September 2002, the RCMP filed an application for a telephone warrant … [it] referred to [Ahmed Abou El Maati's] confession to the Syrians that he undertook pilot training at the request of his brother and that he accepted a mission to be a suicide bomber by exploding a truck bomb on Parliament hill."
• Even though the RCMP was made aware that the confession was extracted by "extreme coercion," they insisted that it was "still accurate and continues to be true." In this period, RCMP investigators had heard of Mr. El Maati's complaints of torture but dismissed them as "damage control" and asserted the confession corroborated their earlier investigation of him.
• It was the CIA that sent questions to Canada about Mr. Arar when U.S. border guards arrested him in October, 2002. The CIA, which sent him to the Middle East in shackles aboard a leased Gulfstream jet, appears to have been driving the process to send Mr. Arar to Syria.
• Canadian officials were knowledgeable about the U.S. practice of "rendering" suspects to harsh interrogations third-countries. "I think the U.S. would like to get Arar to Jordan where they can have their way with him," one CSIS official wrote in an email on October 10, 2002 – two days after Mr. Arar was quietly sent to that country, and on to Syria, for questioning.
• CSIS visited Syria once Mr. Arar was in custody and came back with the impression that officials there "looked upon the matter as more of a nuisance than anything." He remained jailed there for nearly a year.
(* Truck driver Ahmad Abou El Maati, just two months after 9/11, “confessed” in Syria to plotting a truck bomb attack in Canada at the behest of his brother, who is still considered a fugitive al-Qaeda suspect.
The truck driver has since returned to Canada, uncharged, and recanted his statements as purely the product of torture. He has also expressed regret that he was forced into naming Canadian associates of his, including Maher Arar, including saying that he saw the telecommunications engineer in Afghanistan in the early 1990s.)
It shouldn't come as a surprise that Canadian intelligence agencies knew about the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" practices since that program was authorized by Clinton in 1995. But, for the RCMP to expect that a warning it sent out with the supposed intel it had on Arar would cause the CIA not to act without its permission shows how incredibly naive Canadian officials chose to be in this case.
Again, members of Project A-O Canada had little experience or training to assist them in handling the information-sharing challenges confronting them. This was a new environment for them. For example, they had never dealt with the CIA. As observed by the Assistant Criminal Operations (CROPS) officer, with “A” Division, Inspector Garry Clement, the CIA had a lot more latitude than law enforcement agencies when it came to the war on terror. Project A-O Canada was dealing with American agencies that were more sophisticated in matters of national security and might not always play by the rules Project members would expect.
Considering the CIA's shady reputation and history of illegal, covert activities - including projects like MKULTRA in Canada - one would think the average Canadian intelligence official would know better than to trust the CIA to do everything above board.
To suddenly feign surprise, after providing information on Mr Arar that was false and that was known to have been coerced via the torture of El Maati (a fact which, as the newly revealed portions reveal, was not presented to the judge who handled the telephone warrant in this case) truly rings hollow.
There is definitely enough blame to go around and while Bush repeated again during a press conference today that that the US does not torture, anyone with any knowledge of the CIA's history should have known better than to believe that Mr Arar - or anyone in CIA custody - would be safe.
The judge who ordered the release of these censored passages should be applauded for shedding ever more light on exactly how these ugly covert actions operate because, as much as the Bush administration bloviates about its so-called respect for human rights, the reality is painfully obvious: they'll do anything if they think it will advance the "war on terror", even if that means siding with people and other governments who use torture.
And the Democrats certainly don't get a free pass on this issue either, some of whom helped pass the Military Commissions Act - enabling prosecutorial immunity for CIA torturers - and further eroding legal rights by enabling the passage of the FISA bill last week. The heavy-handedness of the US government is institutional.
This isn't over yet. US officials must be held accountable.
...Staff Sgt. Zalys said Constable Martin was relatively new to the force and unfamiliar with the band's tradition of soccer processions.
"He did not know what was going on. ... His intention was to get the kids to sit down so it would be safe. ... When the crowds started to come in, the members were feeling a little afraid," he explained.
"It's unfortunate that the kids around them also got sprayed. And some spray did go on the baby and I apologize. There was no intention to scare or hurt a child."
Afterward, Staff Sgt. Zalys told reporters that he hoped the pepper-sprayed youngsters would recover quickly.
"Pepper spray can be a painful thing. But in the overall scheme of things, it is on the lower end of the use of force."
Yes, that baby is lucky it wasn't mowed down by a gun. That would have been much worse.
Wankers.
(And if you want to see a shameful display of racism in Canada, read some of the comments attached to that article.)
"I'm a lawyer and I tell you they would be in court if it was anyone else, and packing a tooth brush for prison," said Conservative MP Brian Fitzpatrick.
Said Liberal Shawn Murphy: "The coverup is worse than the crime."
OTTAWA – The federal government is appointing an investigator to probe allegations that top Mounties committed fraud involving the RCMP pension and insurance plans.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day promised a "full public report," but stopped short of calling a public inquiry, which would have the power to subpoena witnesses.
If there are alleged crimes involved, why wouldn't Day want an investigator to have subpoena powers?
These allegations are not new, of course, so I also wonder why Day took such a long time to actually call for action.
Kim Bolan, the journalist who wrote the Vancouver Sun article about Liberal MP Navdeep Bains' father-in-law's appearance as a potential witness on a list in the Air India bombing inquiry says there is no need for a leak investigation, as the Liberal party has called for.
Vancouver Sun reporter Kim Bolan told The Canadian Press on Saturday that there was no leak from anyone and that the story was done on her own initiative.
The Liberals demanded Friday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office look into whether anyone in government or law enforcement provided that confidential "security information" to the Sun.
"The story was not a plant by anybody," Bolan said. "All this talk of plants by the government or the RCMP is ludicrous.
"Nobody has disputed a single element of the story because it's true," said Bolan, who has covered the Air India case since the tragedy in 1985.
Bolan said it's ridiculous that politicians are reacting as if the information is some kind of security breach. She said anyone who has covered the Air India case in any detail has the information.
She gave the same basic statement (minus the anger) via e-mail to Ross at The Gazetteer blog on Friday. Ross also has an update on this story and I want to add that Bolan's certainly being defensive. I haven't seen anyone claim that what she reported wasn't true. That wasn't the issue here. It was about whether or not there was a leak and the outburst that resulted in parliament after Harper tried to read from the article. She had also told Ross that she got her information from an "Ontario contact" who supposedly told her that Bains was related to a potential witness, so it's not surprising red flags were raised - especially considering the currently contentious political climate.
Whether or not this will satisfy the Liberals remains to be seen and it certainly, in my mind, does not excuse Stephen Harper's part in this affair.
Update: Ross's part in this story was noticed by CTV's Politics blog as well. Good work, Ross!
Update: Red Tory has a full summary of the events surrounding all of this on his blog.
As I noted in this post, some of us have been wondering who might have given reporter Kim Bolan the tip that Navdeep Bains' father-in-law was a potential witness in the Air India inquiry. Bolan, alledgedly posting over at The Gazetteer's blog, said she had received the information from members of the Sikh community. (Please note that we have yet to verify if Bolan actually did write that comment.)
The Liberals raised the potential leak during question period on Friday and have now called for an investigation:
OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberals demand an investigation to determine whether a government official leaked the identity of a potential witness in the Air India bombing case to a Vancouver newspaper.
They said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office should check to see if anyone in government or law enforcement provided that confidential "security information" to the Vancouver Sun. The prime minister himself referred to the article in the House of Commons this week. [...] The Liberals said it was obvious that some public official - either in government or law enforcement - leaked Darshan Singh Saini's name because only they would be aware that the RCMP might want to question him.
"The newspaper story used by the prime minister this week in a disgusting drive-by smear against a member of Parliament contained assertions about alleged police proceedings of a highly secret nature," Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said.
"They are secret to ensure the integrity of those proceedings, but yet the information, true or not, was made public.
"Why did the government deem it appropriate to publish secret security information and does that disclosure not in itself constitute breaking the law?"
Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan denied any government involvement and said the Liberals could complain to the Vancouver Sun if they have a problem with the story.
"The government did no such thing," Van Loan said.
"(Goodale) knows well that this government does not control the media in this country - anything but."
Goodale said that even if no one in government gave the Sun Saini's name and drew attention to his links with a Liberal MP, the RCMP answers to the government.
He pointed an accusatory finger at Harper's office. He noted that Harper's senior staff mass e-mailed the Sun article to journalists on Parliament Hill just after the prime minister made the comments.
"The despicable events of last Wednesday were no accident," Goodale said.
"From beginning to end this was contrived, premeditated slander. So let us go right to the source, who in the government disclosed secret security information? Was it or was it not the Prime Minister's Office?"
It's time for Bolan to speak up publicly about this, especially if she did write that comment on The Gazetteers blog and did get this information from members of the Sikh community.
In a nutshell, she said it was she who initiated the proceedings by asking an Ontario contact about the whereabouts of Mr. Saini as she does this to keep track of folks that have been involved in the Air India case, and the closely related cases of the shootings of a local newspaper publisher... [...] In her Email reply to me, Ms. Bolan then want on to state that it was only after she had made her initial enquiry that the source then mentioned that Mr. Saini was the father-in-law of Mr. Bains, which she didn't already know at the time and which she found interesting (and, as she stated in the original comment, 'relevant', especially after Mr. Bains confirmed it).
Now, you may want to question the motives of the 'source' in divulging that information but, now matter how you slice it, I believe that Ms. Bolan has provided us with a reasonable explanation regarding the Fifth 'W'.
I disagree and I still wonder 1) who that "Ontario source" was and 2) why she thought it was "relevant" to divulge this information which, as has been pointed out, was not supposed to be made public.
Ross over at The Gazetteer has been as curious as I've been about the circumstances surrounding Kim Bolan's Vancouver Sun story about Navdeep Bain's father-in-law in relation to the Air India bombing case. Specifically: how did she know who was on a potential witness list and who leaked that information to her?
Apparently (and this is not confirmed, as Ross points out), Bolan has responded to those questions in this comment:
I wrote the story and there was no leak. It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings - all the names came out during the evidence at the trial. After the trial, I wrote my book on Air India, called "Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away With Murder" and reviewed documents related to the one Supreme Court challenge of the investigative hearing provision, launched and lost by Satnam Reyat - the wife of the only man convicted.
I have covered this story since 1985 so there are few mysteries or secrets. I first interviewed Darshan SINgh [sic] Saini back in 1988. I have a copy of parts of his police statement that came out during the Air India trial. The reason I wrote the story this week is because I just learned (through Sikh community contacts, not POLICE) that Saini was the father-in-law of Bains. I did not know that until very recently. I called up Saini and Bains and they confirmed it. I thought it was relevant.
So don't always look for a political conspiracy. In this case, there isn't one. Kim Bolan | 02.23.07 - 2:17 am | #
She "thought it was relevant" to what, exactly? The Liberal party's decision to sunset the 2 anti-terrorism clauses they oppose.
Ross seems quick to forgive her, but I'm not. Her story appeared at the same time as this one declaring that Paul Martin sought help from a listed terrorist group in 1990.
These things don't happen in a vacuum. There's a concerted Conservative effort to smear the Liberals as being "soft on terror" so the tories can try to demonize them.
Bolan clearly showed her bias in her article when she tried to make this connection:
The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.
But the ability to hold those hearings will be lost March 1 if parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act expire as expected, after the Liberals recently withdrew support for extending the provision being used to hold them.
This isn't about a "conspiracy", Bolan. It's about how and why you chose to write what you did. Further, if she did write the above comment why did she refer to Bains' father-in-law like this? "I first interviewed Darshan SINgh Saini back in 1988." "SINgh"? SIN? What's that about? Why would a journalist make such an obvious mistake?
No. Something about this just doesn't smell right, although it certainly does smell right-wingish.
Update: Apparently, some members of the Sikh community have been following Bolan's reporting for years and they're not exactly pleased with what they've seen.
Pass the tissues. Oh how I weep for those poor victims of the RCMP raid of the Cons' headquarters.
