Comments on: Rights and Democracy rips itself apart

By: OttawaValleyVoice

OttawaValleyVoice — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:03:40 +0000

Oh come on. You know very well that the issue was not inappropriate allocation of funds but one of trying to silence any and all criticism of Israeli human rights abuses by ceasing to fund any organisation providing us with the truth. These were politically motivated decisions by the new Board members who have been mandated by Harper to seek to cut all support to those who dare to question Israeli actions.

By: john S

john S — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:42:50 +0000

You two have got to be kidding me! With all that has been going on with censorship in Canada you are trying to portry this as the tip of a Zionist plot to silence criticism of Israel. Get your blinders off and look into the issue. Any attempt to rein in the R and D bunch has to do with inappropriate use of Canadian money to support groups. It also has to do with problems of accountability for funds used by the group.
If i had a dime for every anti Israel fanatic babbling about plots and jewish conspiracies on the web i might be able to afford to hang with the Rights and Democracy staff (again, research the story) or maybe i could be charitable and donate the money to have you peoples blinders removed.

By: john S

john S — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:35:24 +0000

Perhaps someof those people who commend this article as 'good journalism' could explain to me how this verdict was determined. Is it because Mr Wells said a lot of things you liked to hear? Is it because it was thorough, balanced coverage? If the former, well no comment from me is needed. If it is the latter then perhaps you would also like to tell me why you would feel qualified to judge?
Mr Wells is determined to spin this story into an anti government, behind the scenes government conspriacy story. In fact, it has more to do with scandalous use of Canadian tax payer money to support three palestinian support groups, one of which has been designated as a terrrorist group by our actual government. You will not find this information in either of Mr Wells stories on R and D. I suggest those of you who feel this was an example of good journalism try doing a little research on their own. I certainly think it would be a good idea in the case of McCleans (to which i do subscribe).
I am disappointed at Mr Wells attempt to spin this story for his own ends. It shakes my faith in the magazine somewhat.

By: Mrs. I. Black

Mrs. I. Black — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:22:58 +0000

You are absolutely right on this, and I know for certain I do not want to be governed by Israel's leaders, and yet that is where we are headed. Already, like in the war on Lebanon and the massacre in Gaza, anyone in Canada who criticizes the Israel war machine, is quickly silenced or labelled a "terrorist" or antisemitic. We have to sit in shame, worried about our job prospects, if we dare to speak out. Canada used to be seen as fairminded and I used to be proud of this country, but it's been a while since I've felt any pride.

By: SteelcitySteve

SteelcitySteve — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:20:32 +0000

Implying that Conservative appointees are motivated by a desire for accountability and transparency is absurd in light of Harper's litany of lies in Parliament and his legendary disdain for journalists who try to get to the bottom of his actions. Harper's last campaign was all about accountability and transparency but his secret meetings with special interest groups like the Israel Lobby, and forcing his own members jnto silence shows that the man has no understanding of, or desire for, accountability. So where would his appointees get the idea? After all; monkey see, monkey do.
More importantly, democratically elected political groups like Hamas are no more terrorist than the Likud Party, or Conservative Party in Canada. Neocons and Zionists are clearly the real terrorists with global reach, and working together they are responsible for the destruction of two innocent nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.

By: Mike White

Mike White — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:54:38 +0000

I'm not convinced that this is good journalism. I read elsewhere that the real reasons for the war is that the newer members challenged the non-accountability of Beauregard and the rest of the Board, their support of questionable allocation of monies to a suspect terrorist supporter and lavish expenditures on meals etc. The newer board members wanted to inject accountability into the process and the older Board members objected to the new scrutiny.

By: BMACK

BMACK — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 07:40:11 +0000

Another example of how the Liberals refuse to accept the fact that they are not in power. So when their appointees are replaced they rally their left wing media friends like Wells to help create outrage through misinformation. Get over it Liberals, you lost.

By: felis corpulentis

felis corpulentis — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:14:34 +0000

Hear! Hear!

By: nvrundrestm8

nvrundrestm8 — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:02:28 +0000

So the Liberals reshaped things when they were in power and the Conservatives can't?

By: foottothefire

foottothefire — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:56:57 +0000

No one snow flake is alike but they're all still snowflakes; Is that your premise? What Harper has brought to Canadian governance is of a much, much different color and includes a foul odor.

By: nvrundrestm8

nvrundrestm8 — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:01:28 +0000

hidden agenda? garbage–this is a public organization with public records–this debate demonstrating that–the hidden agenda garbage just wont stick–s0 all those people that didn't vote for Harper are a big homogeneous group with the same ideals? Very obtuse thinking!

By: SteelcitySteve

SteelcitySteve — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:55:20 +0000

Well's blogs, the Jerusalem Post article, and especially Harper's injection of neocons and zionists into the Rights the Democracy group, and the entire Byzantine episode shows the determination of the very powerful political group known as the Israel Lobby to silence debate over and criticism of Israel. Much more threatening to Canadians however, are the secret meetings on Parliament Hill between members of the Israel Lobby and Harper's neocons, who are preparing legislation to silence Canadian criticism of Israel. If this dark agenda succeed we will lose our democratic rights and freedoms, and we have the Israel Lobby to thank. This kind of meddling in Canadian politics by ethnic groups with aggressive political arms have already put Canadians at risk because of our foolish participation in Bush;s war on terror, and the meddling must be stopped. The tail has been waging the Canadian dog for too long, and thanks to Paul Wells we get a very good picture of just how they're doing it.

By: SteveWBCanada

SteveWBCanada — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:43:51 +0000

Why do we as taxpayers continue to allow our money to be wasted on useless, featherbedding purposeless outfits like this? Did all of these people donate huge sums of money to federal politicians in order to get these ridiculous positions? Get rid of the whole can of rubbish and make these people get real jobs.

By: Orest Slepokura

Orest Slepokura — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:29:16 +0000

Quote: "Later that night Rémy Beauregard died in his bed of a heart attack. When Aurel Braun signed his name to a notice of condolence on the organization’s website, Beauregard’s widow, Suzanne Trépanier, wrote him a furious letter. 'You don’t treat a person like you did with Rémy and then praise his qualities after he is dead. This is, to me, hypocrisy.'”

This reminds me of scenes in Mafia fiction (Mario Puzo's "The Godfather") and non-fiction (Gay Talese's ("Honor Thy Father") in which a Mafia don attends the funeral of a rival in order to pay his respects. Didn't realize till now that academics could match that benchmark for callous hypocrisy. It's impressive, in a way. For some the fabled Ivory Tower of academe is evidently more of a fortress.

By: Ione Dee

Ione Dee — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:09:47 +0000

Lets all BUY the magazine It is definately excellent journalism.

By: sprite1949

sprite1949 — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:21:27 +0000

Get real Sam…people here know exactly what I mean and you pretend not to know…but nice try though. Even with all its flaws and weaknesses, the Canada that has been shaped by mostly a Liberal population has proven itself worthy in our world. I do not want Harper, et al. to turn it into another American state. You most likely do.

By: Sez Me

Sez Me — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 01:55:55 +0000

Right on!!
It is clear that Harper appointed conservatives of all stripes to this board. An obvious attempt by neo-religionists to gain control is being frustrated, hoprfully, by those who see what is happening. I doubt that Mr. Harper loves this any moe than I do.
The example of how the "religious right" works through such bodies to eventually control a political party can be had in how they have gained power in the Republican Party in the USA.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:48:22 +0000

You should probably change your nickname to "Concern Troll".. I expect it'd be more accurate.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:47:02 +0000

No, but anyone who suggests conspiracy theories which revolve around controlling the courts and the judges certainly IS paranoid.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:43:51 +0000

Going in camera to discuss the performance of the president is regular business.

Ordering the secretary not to record the result, and then sending a (probably different) confidential evaluation which the evaluatee is not allowed to see is most definitely *not* normal business.

Paul, have you submitted a FOIPP request to Cannon for the confidential evaluation?

By: Sam Huizenga

Sam Huizenga — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:46:21 +0000

You mean the one that imposed the War Measures act in Quebec? The one that ripped off Alberta? The one that pushed Quebec to the brink of separation? The one that denuded our military to the point where the term "like the Canadians" was used as an insult in military circles? (meaning hopelessly underfunded) The one where the prime-minister secretly orders bags of tax-payers cash to be handed over to ad execs? etc. etc etc.

Quit it with the whole fallacy that there was this utopian liberal past and the neo-cons are messing it up. There are things the conservatives are doing well and there are things that need correction. Democracy is never clean-cut at the best of times

By: Concerned Liberal

Concerned Liberal — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:42:29 +0000

Michael Ignatieff will never be Prime Minister of Canada with a majority government !

The Party needs to look much further down the line to find its own Barack Obama, all the usual clowns like Rae, Leblanc, McGuinty, etc. have far to much political baggage for anyone to look at them objectively.

Good luck, you are going to need it !

Shake it up or wallow in mediocrity !

By: Concerned Liberal

Concerned Liberal — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:41:37 +0000

Besides Ignatieff highjacked the democratic process the Liberal party has prided itself upon when he was annointed with the leadership without going through a leadership process and more importantly a leadership vote. His one member one vote passage at the last convention was a lame attempt to appease his critics.

How about the man come clean, hit the reset button and hold a true leadership convention not the bogus spectacle we were all subjected to this past spring. What a farce !

Time for the Liberals to wake and realize this horse is done, he has commited so many mistakes he is done. Even if he were to win it would a lame duck minority at best, this isn't a job where the candidate gets to learn as he goes along.

By: Concerned Liberal

Concerned Liberal — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:40:42 +0000

If the Liberal Party believes it will move forward with Mr. Iggy and his Canada 150 in 2017, then it is fair to say that from now to 2017 we will have a Conservative government.

I haven't seen a Liberal court the grassroots or go door to door in eons, trying to connect with only one segment of the population (university students) is shortsighted and a sure sign of a leader afraid to face party delegates or even party members who oppose him. He does not have the capacity to bring people together for a common cause and never will, he should return to academia where he belongs. He is not a man of the people.

By: illbethejudge

illbethejudge — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:38:02 +0000

i can. He belongs to the Alliance Church in Calgary. It is an Evangelical Christian Church. It believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe in Creationism not Evolution, that the Earth is a mere 5,000 to 6,000 years old. They believe in the Rapture and for those who have been saved by Christ to be "taken up" to heaven Israel must be a state. Canada's so-called Science Minister is a laughingstock in Canada's scientific community because he also believes in the same thing, including Creationism. Google Dr. Charles McVety and Stephen Harper for more. But, unless you happen to agree with the above, be very prepared to be very frightened.

By: illbethejudge

illbethejudge — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:31:33 +0000

This story is an example of Harper's "hidden agenda". Very few Canadians even know about these stories. They go by largely unnoticed and people do not get a true picture of what Harper is really up to. Stacking boards with people whose specific purpose is to undermine and destroy the organization. I wish to hell someone in the media would do what would no doubt be a difficult thing, but track all these worthwhile organizations and do a big picture story. Someone who is unaware of what is going on would look at this and reasonably think it's a bit of internal swordsmanship and turmoil, not an incremental and deliberate plan to undermine very important institutions that are the foundation of important Canadian values that at least 70% of the electorate hold dear. MacLean's??? How about connecting the dots so Canadian can see the bigger picture.

By: matt

matt — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:31:59 +0000

The lens that I view Canadian politics through is a frustration with the failure of liberals or social democrats to recognize conservative policies as legitimate points of view. Not necessarily better, but legitimate. Being an Alberta educated in the East, in my mind this often morphs into a perception of my/Albertan policies are less Canadian than other policies. For example, the sponsorship scandal and the "Guns in our Cities" ads respectively conflated

My hunch as to what is going on with Rights and Democracy is that attempts to rein in an organization resulted in blowback that smacked of "your beliefs are illegitimate" and the new members subsequently went for the jugular on the premise that because the gloves were so clearly off that the integrity of the correction process could be compromised, so long as there was correction.

By: hosertohoosier

hosertohoosier — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:59:42 +0000

Once again you discuss this internal battle without reference to the battlefield. The new board members have accused Rights and Democracy of allocating funds inappropriately, and I think they have a fair case. Being unloved by the employees of an organization that at best wasted taxpayer money and at worst funded organizations that undermine Canada's international goals is hardly a mark of shame.

At any rate, I don't see this as an example of the power of appointment (after all, it is the appointees that are facing a push for their removal), but rather as the power of a co-opted bureaucracy run amuck (one being rightly chastened by appointees of our democratically elected government).

By: CAM

CAM — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:00:03 +0000

CORRECTION | Certainly this story has a lot of blow by blow details of who did what to whom and how. The story does not enlighten as to the the CONCERNS of the various people and factions. It also lacks information about what those involved thing would resolve whatever the problem is.ter text right here!

By: CAM

CAM — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:58:37 +0000

certainly this story has a lot of blow by blow details of who did what to whom and how. The story does not enlighten as to the the various people and factions. It also lacks information about what those involved thing would resolve whatever the problem is.

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:25:23 +0000

I am beginning to learn that this "outsourcing" decision might have something to do with giving Ed Broadbent an opportunity to double-dip with a salary over and above his MP pension. But just look at all the human rights flourishing worldwide that would not be flourishing were it not for this organization. No luck? Keep looking… they must be somewhere…

By: SirJohn_Eh

SirJohn_Eh — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:07:40 +0000

Excellent coverage, who can get this into into a headline that will stick out of the news ticker? This is exactly the kind of thing we all need to know more about – during good times and sabotaged times.

By: DPT

DPT — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:06:52 +0000

that's right. anyone who questions liberal agenda is paranoid and has a hidden agenda. What's crazy is that so many of your ilk are incapable of considering an opposing point of view. The tolerant left… as long as you agree with what I say.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:05:49 +0000

I agree that it's good journalism, but I'm suspicious of the fact that you only think that something is "good journalism" when it supports your partisan preconceptions. Otherwise, you think it's media bias. The same goes for other commenters here.

By: DPT

DPT — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:03:00 +0000

The problem at this point is, we have no testimony as to the process or the selection criteria previous to this episode. Good or bad we're getting one side of the story here. No slag to Paul but how acrimonious was this board before? How many political appointees were chosen to (and for what views) affect a certain agenda or point of view on this board.

Furthermore, why are the actions of R&D subject to scrutiny now? Because someone has sought to effect change to the balance. This is the problem, why is it necessary to mention the christian think tank nominee or the former conservative candidate ( not that I'm any fan of the religion) and not the philisophical bent of the prior existing board? Is that irrelavant? The issue is that someone tried to change the system by the systems SOP and now the establishment is pissed. Well to bad live by it, die by it.

By: Orson Bean

Orson Bean — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:49:30 +0000

This is how meetings of boards that have become dysfunctional and ugly are conducted.

By: Maureen

Maureen — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:34:07 +0000

These are not civil servants – they are employees of NGO which receives all of its money from the government. There is a board of directors who are accountable for the work of the organization but apparently have been sidestepped by the staff. If I was on a board of an organization where staff worked in the way that these staff did – they would all be unemployed! The board is the ultimate authority for an NGO and the board is accountability, in this case to the government of the day. In this case the board is also appointed by the government, because THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES ALL THE MONEY FOR THE NGO.!!!! Staff need to accept that and if they can't then they should move onto another organization.

The supposed advantage of having an NGO is because NGOs can work in a more flexible manner than government departments, but that does not translate into NGO staff not keeping board members informed of what they are doing. NGO staff are not accountable for the money received and spent, the board of directors is.

By: Maureen

Maureen — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:27:34 +0000

Please be more specific – for example can you even name the church that Harper belongs to and the tenets of the faith, before you start to make allegations about intent.

I see this as more a cause of an NGO being generous with implementing its mandate. I would prefer that no government money go to any NGO that has anything that resembles a political agenda – it is far too easy for the group to be manipulated by both the left and the right. We have a government and a foreign policy of that government (you may not like the foreign policy but that is a democracy – suck it up) – the government of the day should be dealing with issues that these NGOs have been tagged with – governments are accountable, NGOs are not.

By: jayardi

jayardi — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:39:36 +0000

Interesting responses to your article. The comment by "Tedbetts" that it has merit "not only because it highlights Harper in a negative way…" seem to be typical. Pointing the finger at Stephen Harper regardless of the issue and of constantly reading ulterior motives into his political positions and decisions is a tiresome and predictable tune played by frustrated liberals. In the U.S. Harper would be regarded as being a socialist. Many of us in this country view the conservative nature of the man as being an asset and his social policies as being based in good common sense.

As for prorogation and placing like minded people in positions of influence, politics can be an intense and at times a nasty game. The current Prime Minister is a relative novice at pulling strings compared to many of his predecessors, including the likes of Chretien and Martin. That he is a fast learner clearly irks those who are so desperate to regain control. The comment linking his approach to the crystal ball politics of MacKenzie King is patent silliness. If he wasn't attempting to establish a social direction for the country the critics would be complaining that he has no vision.

By: Orson Bean

Orson Bean — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:37:10 +0000

How about Harper appointees rip each other apart?

By: mary

mary — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:11:31 +0000

Thanks for the very clear and well reported account. One question. Don't you think the headline should read Harper appointees rip Rights and Democracy Apart?

By: Kaplan

Kaplan — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:52:03 +0000

I'm glad you're thinking of sticking with this story. Nice work so far…

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:25:48 +0000

This was a Liberal plot. “They wanted to introduce this same-sex marriage through back channels,” Harper said then. “They had the courts do it for them, put the judges in they wanted, then they failed to appeal, failed to fight the case in court.”

This guy has an exhibited lifelong paranoia of government – that all of its institutions, departments, rules and personnel are an endless Liberal plot of some sort or another. It borders on lunacy.

By: shouldIsellyourwheat

shouldIsellyourwheat — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:02:23 +0000

Why has Canada outsourced (what should be) part of the Department of Foreign Affairs?

So cronies of the establishment can earn exorbitant salaries, and be outside of normal government accountability? At what risk to Canada's reputation?

How is this any different than privatizing health care? This privatizing foreign policy.

By: kcm

kcm — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:47:04 +0000

I've only been a part of semi formal sports organization boards. They get a little heated too, so i can see what you mean. My 'board' meetings have most often ended up with a visit to the local watering hole…which IMHO is where they all should end. I hope you advise your clients similarly:)