11/02/2005

Banned Liberal Party Members

Read the article...
I was interested by the following list of individuals banned from the Liberal Party yesterday by Prime Minister Martin:
former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano; Michel Beliveau, former executive director of the federal Liberal Party's Quebec wing, 1996-98; Benoit Corbeil, former executive director of the federal Liberal Party's Quebec wing, 1998-2001; Alain Renaud, well-connected Liberal Party campaign worker and fundraiser; Jacques Corriveau, president, Pluri Design Canada and Liberal Party fundraiser; Antonio Mignacca, Liberal Party operative and close friend of Gagliano; Beryl Wajsman, president, Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal and Liberal fundraiser; Giuseppe (Joe) Morselli, caterer, Liberal fundraiser; Serge Gosselin, worked for the Liberal Party under Corriveau; and Marc-Yvan Cote, Liberal organizer in eastern Quebec.
These are all members of the "old guard," if you will. I am also fairly certain that most of these individuals have had negative commetns regarding the current Prime Minister at some time or another. I know Wajsman and Gagliano both did. I recall listening to an interview with Wajsman a few months ago and his comments were more than a little bit scathing. It would be interesting to review interviews with some of the other listed members, just to recall what they had to say about the current government.
One can't help but feel that Martin's move to ban the above individuals had but two intents: to placate the public in some meager way and to rid himself of those he considered "problems."

6 comments:

Myrddin Wyllt said...

Thought of this last-night.
If our political parties are now funded by taxpayers where does Paul get off banning anyone from a public institution?
It's un-constitutional.

Anonymous said...

HEre are quotes from Gomery:
"Prior to November 1993 [i.e. under the Mulroney administration] ... the selection and engagement of advertising agencies to assist the government in its advertising activities were openly done on a political basis. ... Advertising and communication agencies having Liberal Party sympathies or connections had little or no chance of getting government business."

"[Then, after the Liberals came to power], what appears to have been a sincere attempt to depoliticize an openly biased procurement policy was subverted almost from the very beginning."

or this:

"Just as it is important to identify persons who failed to fulfill their
responsibilities or who might have been guilty of misconduct, it is equally
important in this Report to identify persons who, on the basis of the
evidence, are innocent of any misconduct or mismanagement. Such persons
who, in the publicity surrounding the Commission or elsewhere, might have
been accused or suspected of improprieties, are entitled to have any blemishes
to their reputations explained or removed."

and this:

"One of the main purposes of a public inquiry is to enable concerned citizens
to learn firsthand what occurred when allegations of the improper use of
public funds have been made. By following the public hearings they are able
to arrive at informed opinions as to who might be held responsible for any
errors or mismanagement that might have occurred affecting what the Inquiries
Act calls “the good government of Canada.” The first role of the
Commissioner is to conduct hearings that serve to facilitate the understanding
of the public, while ensuring at the same time that the presentation of the
evidence is done fairly and dispassionately, to avoid premature or unfounded
conclusions from being reached which risk damaging the reputations of persons
innocent of any wrongdoing, impropriety or negligence."

What Justice Gomery has accomplished fulfills exactly the mandate he received.

Anonymous said...

Political parties are not "public institutions". Duh.

Ruth said...

Anonymous #1, although your comment doesn't have anything to do with the post I made, your point is duly noted. I would like to ask you a question: what of Gomery's mandate? In light ofthe fact that the man who commissioned him has been found innocent (a curious gesture since although Gomery could not assign blame he can assign innocence), do you think it is possible that the terms of the mandate itself require some level of scrutiy?
Anonymous #2, what exactly is your point?

Beryl Wajsman said...

A Political Mugging:
The Politics of Canada's Nixon

I wasn’t named for blame in the Gomery Report. I received no Section 13 letter. So I guess if they can’t get you one way they try another. I am now one of ten people “banned for life” from the Liberal Party. A party that I am not even a member of. Under it’s current leadership it is almost a compliment. No one even knows if this is legal, but I guess it sure makes a good sound bite.

There is very little “liberal” about this Liberal administration. Well, as President Harry Truman said, “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” We’re going to stay in the kitchen. We’re going to pursue social justice. And we are going to commit the same “crimes” of criticizing this government when it curtails basic privacy rights and compromises due process of law with McCarthyite witch-hunts.

It is time for Canadians to wake up to the near Stalinist statocratic government we have that can abridge the most basic freedom of a citizen in a free society. That of political affiliation and assembly. That is what this government has tried to do. It will fail. It will fail just as other governments have failed that have crossed the line and incurred the people’s wrath. Nixon had his “enemies list”. We now have a Canadian Nixon.

It is timely that George Clooney’s movie on the battles between famed reporter Edward R. Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy entitled “Good Night and Good Luck” is opening on movie screens across the country this week. Timely because it reminds all citizens of what can happen when the instruments of state are used to destroy a person’s character through innuendo, rumour and hearsay. Murrow won his battle with McCarthy. But it raises the troubling questions of what protections can be afforded ordinary citizens from the encroachments on their rights who do not have access to any voice. At the heart of what we now call McCarthyism was nothing more than political brinkmanship played before a national television audience to settle political scores and raise McCarthy’s image. He was finally brought down by a simple sentence from Boston attorney Joseph N. Welch who had had enough. He asked of McCarthy, “Senator, have you no shame. Have you no decency left?”

Canadians need to ask the same question of this government because there are even greater dangers to civil liberties lurking around the corner. At an Institute conference a Member of Parliament once characterized Canada as a “controlled democracy”. Today, Canada may well be on the road to becoming a terrorizing democracy institutionalizing a culture of victimization and fear. Over the past few weeks the federal government has announced that it will proceed with several initiatives that to this writer put the lie to the image of a just and transparent society we like to peddle to the world.

Next month the Martin government will bring forward legislation allowing for the monitoring of e-mail and internet communications. The bill would force providers of internet and telephone services to duplicate records of their clients’ activities and require, on simple request, that the information be passed on to police authorities. The proposal demands that network capacity be constructed to allow for tapping of some 8,000 individuals at any one time. Federal Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has told Justice Minister Irwin Cotler that the law would allow security authorities to access more information about Canadians’ personal lives than ever before. Yet Ottawa remains strangely silent on consideration of any judicial safeguards and oversight even in light of the fact that current evidentiary requirements for standard wiretaps have already become flimsy and shallow.

The federal Liberals have also gone on record as being committed to proceeding with Bill C-17, the Marijuana Decriminalization legislation, and with Bill C-53, the Proceeds of Crime act. Though legalization, not just decriminalization, of marijuana is long overdue, the problem of C-17 is that it also allows for random stopping of motorists to check for drugs without any necessity of probable cause as exists in the United States. C-53, which seeks to allow the government to seize any assets obtained through illegal means, also has within it the reversal of burden of proof. Unlike even the RICO statute in the U.S. or the “Guerin” law in Ireland, the Proceeds of Crime Bill would make certain accused guilty until proven innocent turning hundreds of years of civil liberties protections on its head.

The new initiatives announced by Ottawa follow in the wake of the giant databases being created by the CCRA which has repeatedly refused to limit its use to anti-terrorism measures as requested by Canada’s privacy commissioner and civil-rights advocates such as former solicitor-general Warren Allmand. They follow in the wake of current Canadian Security Establishment monitoring of some 25% of all land line calls and 50% of cell calls with some 20% of these being sent to the National Security Agency in Washington for transcription. They follow in the wake of the forthcoming biometric national identity cards. They follow in the wake of the proposal to put electronic security anklets on suspects who have not even been charged. And finally, they follow in the wake of the government looking at empowering a host of regulatory functions to be made by Order-In- Council without the approval or consent of Parliament.

It is time to turn the timidity of Canadians around. A timidity that has led to obsequious obedience when Federal Ministers corrode a citizen’s reputation in open pronouncements; when the RCMP raids a reporter’s home in violation of a judge’s order; when Revenue departments compromise longstanding privacy protections on taxpayers files through information exchange with other departments and other levels of government; when CRTC judgments decide what words we are allowed to hear and what images we are allowed to see.

All these matters, if allowed to go unchallenged, will set precedents that will open the door to practices that exist in other societies where state authorities routinely compromise anyone of interest on any pretext. And these issues cannot just be the subject of court challenges. They take too long and damage done cannot be undone. They need to be challenged with the full panoply of weapons including the law, the media and a vigorous public advocacy that threatens to expose what the 18th century legal philosopher Becarria called “… this tyranny of the mindless…” and arrest this triumphant march of the mediocre.

Ottawa must be made to recognize the inherent right of every citizen to an equal claim of presumptive tolerance from the state. That each member of a free society has as a birthright, in Lord Acton’s words, to the “…equity of just consideration…”. This government has been systematically abrogating that birthright. Law cannot be continually used, and abused, as a two-edged sword of craft and oppression. It must become the staff of the honest and the shield of the innocent. Elected officials cannot be allowed to marginalize its citizens without restraint of consequence.

We are a society of laws and not of men. But when bad men make bad laws, or when unprincipled officials compromise good ones, then it is time, as Gandhi said, to stand up and exercise “responsible agitation” to stop governments from “…staggering drunkenly from wrong to wrong in order to protect their own immortality…” Let us never become so falsely pious that we forget that today’s laws are merely the limits on our actions placed by those in power who profited from a yesteryear when these laws did not exist, and now seek to protect their own gains by limiting access for others.

The heart of the matter is whether we can afford to sit idly by while this nation continues the restriction and reversion of rights that has been it’s hallmark over the past several decades, or whether we will chart a return to the proper course for this land, that of meeting a liberal democracy’s primordial obligation of protecting and expanding the amount of liberty and dignity which all human beings have a right to expect.

It is clear why the United Nations named Canada as one of the most invasive and intrusive governments in the liberal west. It is high time to tell the statocratic control freaks on the Rideau that enough is enough.

Today the victim was me. If we do not act, tomorrow it could be you. And our epitaph as a country will be that used by Murrow in one of his concluding programs on McCarthyism, “The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.”

-30-

hancor said...

Dear Beryl,

A copy of my correspondence to the PMO, some time ago June 1st, 2005. For your reflection:

Dear Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada



A copy of my correspondence to the Prime Minister and Leaders of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition forwarded for your perusal.



I believe we are at the end of the democratic coil.



Yours truly,



Hans Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hans Rupprecht CFP [mailto:hancor@msn.com]
Sent: June 1, 2005 9:55 AM
To: 'martin.p@parl.gc.ca'
Cc:

Subject: State of Government








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hans Rupprecht CFP [mailto:hancor@msn.com]
Sent: June 1, 2005 9:45 AM
To: 'duceppe.g@parl.gc.ca'
Subject: State of Government



Dear Prime Minister Paul Martin,

Stephen Harper, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition

Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, Leader of New Democratic Party



It would appear that the learned Prime Minister Paul Martin is really a Tory in disguise. PM Paul Martin’s conversion to the Tory cause, is reminiscent of his namesake on the road to Damascus. Suddenly, we have Paul Martin the “Peeler” attempting to govern without significant confidence in the House of Parliament. The Prime Minister is doing a fine imitation of his 19th century counterpart PM Robert Peeler; albeit without a significant moral compass for his party.

We will have to do a little better than the equivocating compass of moral relativism, which suggests certain objects only have value when one chooses to place value on them. The offering of patronage from the PMO through use of “plausible deniability” and so called “same sex” marriage debate comes to mind. Now we have the bald faced deal brokering by the Gurmant Grewal tapes, subject to “public deniability” for all to see. I extend my salutations to the government for sinking to a new criminal low; in its efforts to hijack democracy. Moreover, seeing that marriage is a provincial power per S. 92(12) of the Constitution Act 1867 all promises against religious discrimination will be rendered a nullity. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to consult with Pope Benedict XVI on the nullification of marriage, for he has clearly mislead on the issue of constitutional responsibilities. Are we the public to assume that there is no moral objectivity outside of oneself, save the lowest common denominator as expressed by the government?



To wit, one only need note the performance of Belinda Stronach newly minted Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Belinda has single-handedly reinvigorated the 19th century “Bed-Chamber Crisis” by creating one of her own. Given that Ms. Stronach has yet to finish her degree; it would seem that she has some skills development to work on herself. As a starting point, if I may be so bold to suggest, be a little less strident in the placement of those stiletto Gucci heels, as they clearly have the capacity to cause significant pain. Please choose a better epitaph than the “Ministry of Silly Walks”. An alternate interpretation, is to suggest we have government by the corporation, for the corporation; the hidden hand of federal politics.



Next we have the proposed legalization of marajuana. Of course I am delighted to contemplate that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces may be “higher than a kite” as he decides whether we go to war or not. Given that our previous Prime Minister Jean Chretien has suggested he would be the first to light up after legalization gives me pause to wonder about the quality of advice given in the PMO. To contemplate a stoned Prime Minister involved in Ballistic Missile Defence….. “Oh lets press the launch button!” Well thank God Almighty we have avoided this certain disaster given my previous writings on the BMD subject. We hardly need discover new and inventive ways in which to incinerate ourselves.



Further paralleling PM Robert Peel, the Irish Potatoe famine has as its corollary the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Repeal of the Corn Laws is hardly the prescription of the past. Surely to God we are not, as part of the international community, going to let the planting season pass only to leave an estimated 2 million displaced to simply starve. This will only serve to add insult to the 180,000 lives already lost to blatant bloody mindedness. Our commitment as a nation, to the security of persons and human life, at home and abroad, has to be more significant than to suggest to Almighty God: “Return to Sender”. While welcome, it will take more than underwriting funding for the African Union mission; some significant on the ground troop strength through the United Nations or other force combination has to make its way there in very short order. Using the existing African Union force to integrate new peacekeepers might be the place to start. 2700 soldiers spread out over a nation the size of France is not going to do the trick. The alternative is to add Sudan to the humanitarian disasters of Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. If the western world nations don’t make a concerted effort in this regard, we are no better than the so called despot regimes we so often decry, for we have become in Burke’s words mere bystanders. Or to use the Irish phrase, we don’t “give a tinker’s damn”. Given that Prime Minister Paul Martin has visited Darfur himself; he is no doubt aware of the grave consequences of not acting. It is quite one thing to condemn verbally a despotic regime; it is quite another to ignore the egregious errors this same regime manifestly commits. It means precious little to appeal to God for guidance in one’s throne speeches, when we studiously ignore our God given intelligence to provide solutions. One needs no Divine miracle, when the correct solution is to give governments a good collective kick in the backside to do it’s duty. Through systematic under funding of the military, a fact the Prime Minister himself has admitted to, we have created the inability to respond over the past decade. We as a nation should be loading planes of peacekeepers now; before it is too late. We quite simply need to place “boots on the ground”, before the planting season window of opportunity irrevocably closes.



No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.



The Constitution Act 1867 suggests that per s.91 that the House of Parliament has the power to make laws in respect of “Peace, Order and Good Government”. One might reasonably make the case we have been delivered unto “War, Chaos and Bad Government”.



Most recently we have had non-confidence motions passed which suggested that due to the lack of progress with Liberal Party and governmental corruption that “… the government should resign.” This was subsequently reaffirmed in 3 motions to adjourn the House. What part of the statement “get ye gone” does the government have such great difficulty in understanding?



Evidently, we are rewriting Westminster Parliamentary tradition; now to be replaced by the dictum “Government will enjoy the Queen’s pleasure to govern; so long as it is politically convenient to delay, through whatever means necessary legal or not, until suitable defections are secured, from members of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”. Ostensibly, this new precedent will be extended into the future by months and years. I congratulate the government on overthrowing Parliamentary convention, not to mention laws against bribery, and replacing it with, in the words of historian Michael Bliss, “proto-tyranny”. The current Liberal Party, as practiced, has crossed the democratic version of the river Styx. Welcome to Hades, ladies and gentlemen, the temperature should be rising shortly.



Indeed, now we have president Chirac suggesting he will resist the democratic will of the people, in the event they vote “No”, in a referendum on the European Constitution. How far will this poison to democracy spread? So this is democracy, only accepted when it accords with the will of the elite?



Moreover, we have the following announcement made on May 25th, 2005: The federal Liberals would consider ignoring a House of Commons defeat should they lose any of the several coming votes that are matters of confidence between now and the end of the spring session, Chief Government Whip Karen Redman says. !!! We won’t be taking any lessons from the Parliamentary pedants who inhabit the government benches.



The aforementioned statement in effect suggests that we will inaugurate a period of ‘taxation without representation’. I congratulate the Chief Government Whip for renewing and modernizing the 1837 Rebellion. Perhaps we should be loading our muskets with ball and shot right about now; given the government has departed the democratic mortal coil.



I gather we now have the rationale for the ill reputed gun registry.



Ms. Redman’s statement has to number among the most inflammatory and incendiary since the demagogues mounted the Bema on the Pynx, Acropolis.



But an attempt to turn the right of election into such a farce and mockery as a fictitious fine and recovery, will, I hope, have another fate; because the laws which give it are infinitely dear to us, and the evasion is infinitely contemptible.



…. I see no other way for the preservation of a decent attention to public interest in the Representatives, but THE INTERPOSITION OF THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ITSELF, whenever it shall appear, by some flagrant and notorious act, by some capital innovation, that these Representatives are going to over-leap the fences of the law, and to introduce an arbitrary power. This interposition is a most unpleasant remedy. But, if it be a legal remedy, it is intended on some occasion to be used; to be used then only, when it is evident that nothing else can hold the Constitution to its true principles. Edmund Burke, THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT DISCONTENTS



This government has passed on! This government is no more! This government has ceased to be! This government is expired and gone to meet its maker! This government is a stiff. This government is bereft of life, this government rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed the government to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! The government’s metabolic processes are now history! The government is off the twig! The government has kicked the bucket, the government has shuffled off it’s mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibile!! This government has had its lot, it is no longer, it is expired, it has departed. THIS IS AN EX-GOVERNMENT!! (With apologies to Monty Python’s parrot sketch.)



Auguring the potential establishment of a dictatorship, per the residual power of the crown per S. 91(29) Constitution Act 1867 to suspend all Charter Rights per S.33 of the Constitution Act 1982 is hardly in keeping with the Westminster Parliamentary tradition. As the Queen and public might be want to say: “WE are not amused.”



To paraphrase one Globe and Mail editorial: The government would spit in the face of the Queen, Parliament and the people and call it respect.



Edmund Burke might make this observation: "Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, can never willingly abandon it."



Some Internet bloggers, have even gone so far as to suggest: “Where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him?”



Perhaps a more apt description of our government is “Rump Parliament” harking back to Oliver Cromwell. The only difference being that now one must adhere to a corrupted secular rather than religious orthodoxy.



My family has over the course of five generations variously survived the machinations of Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Erich Honnecker. We will be taking no more lessons in despotism and blind stupidity, as we have completed our historical tour of duty. We have greater self respect than mere cannon fodder of ages past and have the medals to prove it.



Well if the unlearned government has passed into the self-styled role of the Philistines of Parliament; we will simply have to declare ourselves “freemen and freewomen” of Canada. So government now proposes taxation without representation; or rather simply theft of democracy itself. By the Chief Government Whip’s own statement to defy future confidence votes, we have become a stolen nation. But seeing as the government has been doing this on the sponsorship file it comes as no surprise. Quite frankly, you can take this proposition straight to Hell.



So let me recap my family’s experience of government under the Liberal Party rule:



1. They failed to provide funding for adequate health services for my mother, and required notice of supervised neglect before accepting her as a patient. (Year 2000)

2. The government through the offices of Canada Revenue Agency, has suggested by logical inference, that I kill my son to secure the Disability Tax Credit. (Year 2003) To date I still await an apology for CRA’s venture into criminality. Further CRA has again failed to approve the DTC for my son Nicolaas notwithstanding the recommendations 2.5 of the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities and a $9-22.5 Billion spending spree to secure a “cats claws in the wooden panelling” margin in the House. (2005)

3. The government has allowed systematic corruption of the electoral process in my home province Quebec;

bringing the spectre of the break up of the country, due to its fundamental inability to believe in a balanced federalism. (1994 – 2002) It has further tainted its authority by circumventing a free and fair electoral process.

4. The government has demonstrated that it was willing to entertain assisted suicide through offices of the

Attorney General demonstrating it’s general low regard for the security of the person and or human life.

(Fall 2004)

5. The government has failed to pursue a substantive “boots on the ground” effort to avert a 2 million person

human disaster in Darfur, Sudan. We have about two weeks to cobble something together, before it all just slips away. Planting season is not coming back. Despite my pleading back on December 10, 2004 and the urging of numerous others, such as David Kilgour MP to name but one, we have failed to adequately redress the appalling conditions present. Indeed, UN Secretrary General Kofi Annan has described conditions as “heart wrenching”. While funding is welcome, the time to act is now.

6. The government now proposes further undemocratic behaviour, with respect to further confidence votes

under cutting the notion of democracy itself; advancing in effect the proposition of taxation without representation. So much for the promise of correcting the democratic deficit; it would appear to have rather significantly increased to the point of disenfranchisement.

7. The government through the office of the PMO has perniciously pursued patronage appointments in consideration of abstentions on the May 19th, 2005 confidence vote.





When the government comes to its senses please let me know. I await your considered reply.



One regrettably has to come to the conclusion, that we have been led by rogues and fools.



"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say;

and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" Oliver Cromwell







Yours sincerely,







Hans Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives