Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Rights and Democracy: Transparency and Accountability

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 6:11pm - 137 Comments

From last October, the then-president of Rights and Democracy, Rémy Beauregard, speaks to the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee about the work he did improving the management of the Montreal human-rights organization. Others have been making allegations lately about the work Beauregard did so I thought it was fair to let him speak for himself.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    I have to say, this has to be one of the more convoluted and confusing political controversies to have come along in a while. People are talking about process, ideological interference, etc. You even have people suggesting that political actions led to a man's death.

    However, standing from a distance, this seems to me to be a case of one set of ideologues, specifically from the left, not liking the fact that another set of ideologues, from the right, are moving in on their turf.

    When push comes to shove, isn't this what it's all about? Only, as per usual, the first set of ideologues, specifically from the left, don't want to admit that they're ideologues. Or maybe that's just me.

    • Dot

      There may also be the Bull in the China Shop aspect of Mr. Braun's management style that may have created internal conflicts. Not surprising if he has no previous experience in an organization at that level, and with such a broad mandate.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        There are many questions left unanswered with this whole mess, but one thing I'm pretty sure of is that Mr. Braun's brutal management style leaves something to be desired. Your "Bull in the China Shop" analogy is apt.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

          But Broadbent and others suggesting that his actions may have led to Beauregard's death is OK?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            Did you see his interview with Tom Clark? His eyes were like diamonds.

          • Patchouli

            Dennis, how did Broadbent suggest this? I don't recall thinking that when I saw the interview.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Did you not watch his interview with Tom Clark?

            Here's a summary of what Broadbent said at the very outset:

            - The circumstances are very sad.

            - In 30 years has never seen an intrusion of rights like this.

            - An attack on the independence of his precious agency.

            - All this has "culminated in the death of the president himself."

            Again, I suggest you actually watch it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Oh, and my understanding is that this isn't the first time that liberals or leftists have suggested that the man was a victim of acts done by political opponents.

          • joops

            I watched the interview with Tom Clark, and nowhere did I get the impression that Broadbent accused Braun of this. He suggested the stress from these circumstances ended in Beauregard's death. That is VERY different from accusing Braun of killing Beauregard. And frankly I find your suggestion disgusting.

          • perdogperday

            Frankly, Broadbent's saying this is totally ok. Life's tough, and actions have sets of unintended but generally predictable consequences. Ruining people's careers, and sending them into the courts for redress, and slandering their characters, all have negative effects on the health of those people. Stress and high blood pressure are brutal to middle aged mens' hearts. Can we prove that Braun caused the death? No. But I would think that even Braun knows that this saga took it's toll on Beauregard. The question is not really one of determining causality (which would be to intentionally sidestep the issue), but one of responsibility/blameworthiness. Has Braun acted responsibly, or not?

            By the way, I consult for a company whose past CEO had a heart attack less than a week after he got fired in a power play. A case just like this one. Not even kidding.

            (This isn't to say that you can't ever fire anyone. Of course you can. But you have to be honest about the consequences of your actions, and if you maliciously slandered someone in order to, say, fire them for political purposes, I think it's pretty hilarious to get all righteous over claims that you had something to do with their heart attack. Pull yourself together – of course you did, or at least might well have).

      • wsam

        Or maybe he has been acting in an under-handed manner as has been suggested.

    • Ted

      Beauregard was appointed by Harper. He was no leftwing ideologue.

      Something else is behind this when Harper's own appointees are out to get his own appointees. Maybe something happened in the fall of 2008. Maybe certain groups who have seen nothing for their dogged support and muzzlement wanted something, anything, for their continued support.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        On the other hand, maybe Harper was appointing people with a diversity of viewpoints to the board and he had no idea that this sort of conflagration would ensue.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          Of course he knew this would happen. What he didn't foresee was the death of Beauregard and the subsequent staff rebellion. I'm sure that he also didn't count on Braun coming under the press gallery's increasingly insistent glare. Braun is the worse possible person to put on camera from what I saw on CTV. I think Harper is going to phone him and tell him to stop speaking to the press.

          It's too late tough. Come March, he will now have to contend with the Afghan issue and the Rights/Democracy affair.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Ah yes, no one is bringing the man's death into this. Unbelievable.

            I saw the Braun interview. Broadbent came out swinging, and Braun swung back. Funny how some liberals and leftists love to dish it out, but can't stand someone replying in kind.

          • knick

            Broadbent knew he would not have an opportunity to respond to anything Braun said because of the limitations Braun insisted upon for the 'interview', so he had no other choice than take advantage of his only opportunity to make his case.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            your are clearly completely ignorant. you should do some reading before trying to take on the world.

            As per a comment by Wells earlier today:

            Also they (properly, I think, because it was so important to give this elusive guest a forum) acceded to Braun's peculiar requests regarding the circumstances of his appearance: He would speak only in response to Broadbent, and not if Broadbent was permitted to respond to him. He forgot to ask that there be no journalist panel at the bottom of the hour, however.

            who can't take it?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "Also they (properly, I think, because it was so important to give this elusive guest a forum) acceded to Braun's peculiar requests regarding the circumstances of his appearance: He would speak only in response to Broadbent, and not if Broadbent was permitted to respond to him. He forgot to ask that there be no journalist panel at the bottom of the hour, however."

            Unreal!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            hey PolJunkie

            I actually think that given the importance of getting Braun on the public record on what is happening, that while I concur it is def unreal to get this much leeway in a public debate, it was prob tolerable even though it was undesirable.

            the ridiculous trolls on here are jsut plainly untolerable however.

          • wsam

            Braun insisted Broadbent not be given the chance to reply.

            Just like a (Harper) Conservative. Run away!!!

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

          Maybe so, but he's smart enough to know that no matter what happens, if anything is shown to be wrong, the opposition will try to pin it on him.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          . . . he [Harper] had no idea that this sort of conflagration would ensue.

          I doubt he had ever heard of Rights & Democracy until somebody began pestering him to appoint monomaniacal neoconservatives to the board. He probably appointed them thinking it would make them go away and do no real harm.

          The practical problem with the neoconservatives is not that they are wrong, it's that they're desperately incompetent almost to a man. I doubt Harper cares one way or another on Israel / Palestine, but he just can't have guys like Aurel Braun getting in front of TV cameras and being identified as Harper appointees. I agree with PolJunkie that Braun will be told by PMO in no uncertain terms to avoid the press henceforth; the guy seems like such a loose cannon, however, that I wonder if he will obey.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            I doubt he had ever heard of Rights & Democracy

            I'm pretty sure he had. Harper is intelligent and well-informed, and unlike some Reaganesque character, he's well aware of the many instruments of government.

            so much of success in life is believing in yourself that, if you're inspired to fanatical self-confidence, you can often succeed to positions of power for which you are truly unsuited.

            Not that I would defend neocons (I've never had much time for them) but I'm pretty sure they're not the same thing as Ayn Rand devotees.

            I doubt Harper cares one way or another on Israel / Palestine

            I think he does. I think he supports Israel's right to exist and opposes things like "lawfare". I just don't agree with Wells's suggestion that qui veut noyer son chien l'accuse de la rage. I think Braun's appointment was probably intended to block R&D contributions to overtly anti-Israel organizations and "lawfare" practitioners, but I'm pretty sure that the ensuing mess was the result of unplanned managerial ham-fistedness rather than deliberate scheming.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            I'm sure Harper is perfectly well informed about the instruments of government that matter, and I concur that he is one of our more intelligent prime ministers. I just dispute that R&D really matters that much in his worldview.

            My point about "fanatical self-confidence" was just that these extreme pro-Israel people, of the Braun / Levant type, seem to have lost the ability to reason on this subject. The slightest criticism of Israel is immediately reinterpreted as anti-Semitism, a denial of Israel's right to exist, etc. That seems to me a sign of nothing less than psychosis on this particular issue. One sees it elsewhere on ethnic issues: try convincing a Serb that Kosovo's independence has merit, or the Palestinians that the establishment of Israel had its positive side. Yet one can have a perfectly rational conversation with such people about soccer, or fishing, or tax policy.

            I must admit I don't grasp what "lawfare" is in general — it seems like a questionable concept, particularly in this case, since getting the Palestinians to renounce violence and pursue their agenda by peaceful means is what we all want, and the opposite of warfare. But I presume it's the alleged abuse of the legal process in some way or other. On the other hand, from Al Haq's site it seems like it mainly opposes things like the infringement of property rights by the security fence and whatnot: challenging those myriad violations of Palestinian human rights does not strike me as "lawfare" per se: if Israel has grossly violated Palestinian human rights, it will be bombarded by many appeals for redress, unless it is pushed to deny that the Palestinians actually have rights: is that what Braun wants?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            I just dispute that R&D really matters that much in his worldview.

            That contradicts Wells's thesis that these things really do matter to Harper, and are part of the reason why Harper likes being in charge of the government, even if it's a minority government.

            The slightest criticism of Israel is immediately reinterpreted as anti-Semitism, a denial of Israel's right to exist, etc. That seems to me a sign of nothing less than psychosis on this particular issue.

            Actually, if you examine the cases you'll probably concur that "lawfare" is more than "the slightest criticism of Israel". (Seriously, google it.)

            getting the Palestinians to renounce violence and pursue their agenda by peaceful means is what we all want, and the opposite of warfare.

            I completely agree. "Lawfare" is immensely preferable to warfare and the murdering of innocent civilians. Here is an example of "lawfare" that involves Canadians: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/al_haq_support…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            I've googled it, and it appears to be a handy way for the pro-Israel side to equate human rights activism with terrorism: "they are but two paws on the same beast" etc. Perhaps you can set me straight. Is the term used in any other context but the "asymmetric" attempts of the powerless to embarrass the powerful?

            I like your example of lawfare from NGO-Monitor. If the three Quebec corporations are helping to ethnically cleanse the West Bank, let them answer for it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            Is the term used in any other context but the "asymmetric" attempts of the powerless to embarrass the powerful?

            None that I'm aware of. Given that Palestinians are relatively powerless and the state of Israel is relatively powerful, I suppose that your characterization of "asymmetricality" is correct.

            like your example of lawfare from NGO-Monitor. If the three Quebec corporations are helping to ethnically cleanse the West Bank, let them answer for it.

            Indeed. Let them answer for it. They haven't yet, so what are they waiting for?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            They apparently went to court in early October, with the Quebec judge declining jurisdiction. Quite a learned analysis of the case by a Canadian blogger, which I don't pretend to have read through; it seems that, generally speaking, domestic courts are reluctant (except in places like Spain?) to step up and assert their authority over domestic actors on the basis of international law.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            Again, a very good summary, Jack. Except in the case of Spain, domestic courts have been reluctant to step up and assert their authority over domestic actors on the basis of international law, particularly with regards to Palestine-Israel disputes.

          • wsam

            France too.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            I don't think that building housing is the same as ethnic cleansing. Even if one contends that the housing is an indirect attempt at assimilating land.

          • Joops

            Yet some contend that building illegal settlements is part of a wider project of ethnic cleansing. Have you read Israeli historian Ilan Pappe on The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            And those who contend that are nuts.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            That contradicts Wells's thesis that these things really do matter to Harper, and are part of the reason why Harper likes being in charge of the government, even if it's a minority government..

            I am not sure it does. Wells did not specify whether he thought the instruments (i.e., R&D) or the outcomes (i.e., implanting a more pro-Israel foreign policy in Canada) are what really mattered to Harper.

            To the degree I agree with you CR that Harper cares about Israel/Palestine I would suggest he cares more about the outcomes. To the degree that R&D continues to spin into a ridiculous mess like few others during Harper's tenure, it is not apparent to me he cared much about the instrument, or at least clearly not enough.

          • wsam

            From what I understand (and I am often wrong), the term lawfare was first coined by German National Socialist jurist Carl Schmitt, who suggested using legislation and other legal and governmental means to attack political enemies. I have trouble believing, though, that nobody had thought of using the law as a weapon before him. He also stressed the political importance of seeking out and inventing enemies, to give your side something to rally against.

            Recently the term has been applied most often by the right against the left. The claim centres around the left's supposed hijacking of the UN and its agencies to further a leftist agenda by doing things like criticizing US foreign policy and, therefore, weakening it.

          • wsam

            Rights & Democracy and the people staffing it aren't denying Israel's right to exist.

            The useful thing about lawfare as a concept is any piece of legislation, analysis, or legal finding, with which you disagree, is potentially an example of lawfare. Therefore, anything you find disagreeable can be dismissed. Creating an intellectual quagmire.

            Obviously institutions do get co-opted. By both the left and the right. That is why attempts to politicize institutions like the court system, the appointment of judges, the civil service and government agencies like Revenue Canada, or Stats Canada, or arms-length NGOs, any institution intended to function in as non-partisan manner as possible, must be guarded against.

            Right-wingers and neo-conservatives often accuse UN agencies of practicing lawfare. Such as the Goldstein report which, it is claimed, aims to de-legitimize the Israeli state. I assume Braun and Co. consider Rights & Democracy an important player in the lawfare conspiracy.

            Obviously I have been suckered by the fiendish lefties who have used ingenious techniques of lawfare they learned from George Soros at a secret Davos training facility to co-opt the international system.

        • burlivespipe

          More likely he realized the mistake of appointing someone who respected the title and position and who was willing to work within the confines to make the changes, and decided to do what he's done with so many other government institutions, which is to go 'boys from brazil' on it… hilarity ensues.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

      Sounds like a perfectly accurate assessment. The lefty ideologues don't want to admit that they're ideologues, not even to themselves.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Well, it might be the result of simply assuming that you're smarter than your opponents, or the people you're setting policy for. It's just one theory.

        • Holly Stick

          Like Harper saying Canadians don't care about him proroguing Parliament for no good reason? Oh boy, was he arrogant, and oh boy, did he make Canadians angry!

    • relayer76

      In this case the ideologues on the rights are people who support Israel unconditionally and want to stamp out people who believe that:
      a) Palestinians are human being who have the same rights as other human beings
      b) Israel should abide by the Geneva Conventions which stipulates that an occupying power cannot transfer its inhabitants into occupied territory i.e., Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank.
      c) an entire population (e.g., the population of Gaza) should not be victims of collective punishment for exercising their democratic right even if it results in electing the wrong people (Hamas).

      Braun and Matas are or were involved with Bnai Brith and CJC organizations that are behind the Canadian Parliamentary Coalitions to Combat Anti-Semitism http://www.cpcca.ca which is clearly aiming to criminalize criticism of Israel. Whether you favour Israel the Palestinians or even if you don't give a hoot about either, this is an issue that should concern all Canadians who value the foundation of democracy – Freedom of Speech.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    In other words, the ideologue you don't like is to blame.

    • Dot

      No, just that he may have been a wrong pick for this position, in the same sense that I believe Linda Keen was a wrong pick for her position (a point not many here agree with me about, and I care not to argue further).

      Peter Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        I've read your arguments on the subject, and I agree with you.

      • wsam

        Yeah. This is just a staffing problem.

        Nothing to see here, keep moving.

        • Dot

          Put everything into the blender, turn to puree for 5 minutes, serve.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Well, even if you're right, does a man's apparent lack of managing tact warrant this kind of open political warfare? Which is precisely why I think it has been made into a partisan fight, by partisans who insist they're not partisans.

        • Dot

          Not sure if you saw Wells's earlier blog on this today. I and others were attempting to narrow the issues/understand what was going on. My comment on his possible management style was just another factor to consider as to why this went nuclear.

          http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/02/rights-and-dem…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Is it not the case that the most recent Board appointees are all with Braun? Or do I have the wrong idea?

    • Joops

      You are correct.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    No, it's absolutely not OK.

  • knick

    It seems that Rights & Democracy is experiencing the same funding pattern as the OPBO.

    Anyway, just what is it that Braun is so hell-bent on 'cleaning up'?

    • Joops

      'Cleaning up' anyone who works towards human rights for both Palestinians and Israelis, of course.

    • relayer76

      What Braun is so intent on cleaning out is
      a) people who believe that Palestinians are human being who have the same rights as other human beings
      b) people who believe that Israel should abide by the Geneva Conventions which stipulates that an occupying power cannot transfer its inhabitants into occupied territory i.e., Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank.
      c) people who believe that an entire population (e.g., the population of Gaza) should be victims of collective punishment for exercising their democratic right even if it results in electing the wrong people (Hamas).

      • burlivespipe

        Geez, with a name like braun you'd have thought… no relation to the shaving empire, i take it?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cons…

    Harper's got himself a serious problem.

    • Joops

      Agreed. Unfortunately this probably means we'll be hearing more from Jason Kenney in the near future. Remind me to go buy some more earplugs.

    • Holly Stick

      Another one… maybe he will try to cancel Parliament altogether…

    • knick

      How is what Allmand had to say about it so different from what Broadbent said yesterday? Both have served on Rights and Democracy and would be in a position to know whereof they speak. Braun, on the other hand, is a newcomer who thinks he knows a better way to manage an organization that worked quite well before he arrived on the scene. Braun's performance yesterday (including his 'special arrangements') reminds me of the now-familiar pattern used by Harper's political attack dogs.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

      wow, 52 international agencies from Israel, the United States, Western Europe and the Palestinian territories are now decrying Braun's heavy handed actions and equating "the board's action to “a call to cease altogether any meaningful promotion of respect and protection of human rights in the [Palestinian territories], in clear contradiction to Canada's declared interest in furtherance of universal values of human rights and promotion of democracy.”"

      i can already hear the talking points…

      • wsam

        Why do all these international agencies hate our soldiers?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

    You're splitting hairs, and being self righteous about it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      What hairs am I splitting again? Thanks. Next.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        He wasn't even responding to you. Thanks. Next.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

          Oops. You're right. Next.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            No worries. Lots of commenters here have made the very same mistake.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            By the way, you've achieved an all-time record. At least 72 replies to your original comment!

    • joops

      I am not splitting hairs. Correlation is not causation.

      Braun created a nasty work environment. I don't understand why he is being permitted to continue to poison the workplace when it is already clear that most R&D employees do not have confidence in his leadership. No matter what one's political leanings are, it is NOT OK to treat co-workers this way.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      Splitting hairs?

      "My dog died." "Oh, how did he die?" "He was run over buy a car."

      "My dog died." "Oh, how did he die?" "He was brutally murdered by an evil man with a weapon."

      You get the same sense from both of these conversations, do you?

      • wsam

        I don't think that is an accurate representation of what Broadbent said.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Let's see. He cites a laundry list of things that political opponents did wrong, then says "culminating in the death of the president himself."

    Why in the world even mention it? Wait, we know why.

    Again, people who say they're not ideologues sure seem to be seeing this trough ideological lenses.

    • Joops

      He mentioned it because Beauregard died. And that is sad . Now, maybe his heart attack wasn't a result of all the stress and harassment, but that doesn't negate Braun's horrible behaviour. Let's not forget that Beauregard's widow AND most of the staff at R&D issued damning statements of Braun's conduct. And the fact that he is continuing to act like a jerk after Beauregard died tells me a lot about Braun's character. There are polite and constructive ways to get one's point across, and there are better ways to run an organization, but Braun does not seem to have any respect for ANY of the employees of R&D. I've worked with people of all different "ideologies" with no problems, but I would never want to work with someone like Braun.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        And now you're doing it! Some of you have no shame, then have the gall to suggest that it's others who are being partisan and ideological.

        It's almost like politics is a religion to some, and that these agencies are like sacred ground — paid for by taxpayers, of course, — an not to be violated by non-believers.

        • Jan

          Beauregard was appointed by Harper. So how is questioning the criticism of him by
          Braun being partisan. Doesn't the target have to be a ' Liberal appointed hack' to warrant the partisan charge.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Lots of answers to that one. Marc Maynard of Elections Canada was appointed by Harper, wasn't he, and he's had a hard-on for Harper since Day 1. Could well be part of the professional bureaucratic class. Considered sacred liberal ground.

            Also, look at how partisans have used typical tactics in going after Braun.

            Furthermore, although he may not have been directly partisan, he may have been allies with left-wing partisans in the agency.

            Now, do you understand the distinctions? Thanks.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        You're assuming the proof. In other words, without any evidence, you are simply asserting that Braun is horrible, when in reality, we saw a video where broadbent made horrible accusations and Braun defended himself. I've worked with people like you and lived to tell about it. Barely.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          How are Broadbent's "horrible" accusations unfounded?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            I never said they were founded nor unfounded. I'm stating what I saw in the interview.

        • Joops

          From Siddiqui's Toronto Star article on Jan 24:
          "Beauregard's widow, Suzanne Trépanier, had Braun's name removed from centre website messages of condolences.
          "You don't treat a person like you did with Rémy and then praise his qualities after he is dead. This is hypocrisy," she wrote."
          http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/755064

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        Now, maybe his heart attack wasn't a result of all the stress and harassment

        Perhaps his heart attack was the result of cardiovascular disease.

        • Joops

          Exactly my point. Anyone can have a heart attack, including perfectly healthy people. I wasn't clear enough earlier – my point is that nobody is saying Braun caused the death. It seems to me they are just saying that Braun treated Beauregard and everyone else badly. And because Beauregard died, the only people who can testify to Braun's behaviour towards him are his R&D colleagues and his widow.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Then why in the world mention it in the same breath as launching vicious attacks against political opponents? Again, we know why. We know the tactic, and I think it doesn't reflect well on those using it to say the least.

          • Joops

            Why? Because it matters that Remy Beauregard cannot speak for himself. Because he and Broadbent were friends. Because Beauregard was a friend to everyone at R&D. Because he was a good man, whose reputation was soiled, whose job was threatened, who was harassed. And then he died and could no longer defend himself against Braun's smears, nor could he defend his employees at R&D. Who is going to defend the people at R&D now that Braun has silenced them? They aren't being permitted to speak out!

            If a friend of mine had been badly treated before his death, I would be speaking out too. Braun's treatment of Beauregard and the other employees of R&D is NOT OK. Stop condoning it.

    • Jan

      What ideology do you believe these 'idealogues' adhere to? Be specific.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

      Hey Dennis, I have an idea! Why don't we consult the dictionary?!

      Main Entry: cul·mi·nate
      Pronunciation: \\ˈkəl-mə-ˌnāt\\
      Function: verb
      Inflected Form(s): cul·mi·nat·ed; cul·mi·nat·ing
      Etymology: Medieval Latin culminatus, past participle of culminare, from Late Latin, to crown, from Latin culmin-, culmen top — more at hill
      Date: 1647

      intransitive verb 1 of a celestial body : to reach its highest altitude; also: to be directly overhead
      2 a : to rise to or form a summit b : to reach the highest or a climactic or decisive point transitive verb : to bring to a head or to the highest point

      now, in the context of actually understanding the meaning of the word you are using, please explain to me how Ed Broadbent made any such suggestion as Braun caused Beauregard's death you numbskull.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Look, who in the world are you trying to kid? We know why Broadbent et al keep mentioning it. I think it's a disgusting tactic, and some of you want license to keep using it. Unbelievable.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

          You are accusing a man who has dedicated the overwhelming majority of his life to public service of having said something he never actually said anonymously of a message board. Even if you do not agree with the man's perspectives and beliefs he deserves to be treated with some respect. Who is disgusting you classless creep?

          I have never understood why Maclean's permits this kinda of defamation to stand on its message board.

        • wsam

          Debby. You complain of tactics?

          When commentary turns to Braun and Co.’s sneaky efforts to disrupt R&D and subvert the organization. You fail to address the charges.

          Instead you claim this is nothing but squabbling between two sets of ideologues (left versus right).

          Then, when that thesis proves unconvincing as it in no way resembles recognizable reality, you claim Ed Broadbent is really the one who deserves censor, as he is mean. This is because Broadbent implied the stress at work caused by Braun’s agitation might have led to Beauregard's heart attack. A view Beauregard's widow is clearly in sympathy with.

          This, for you, is proof Liberals are afraid to debate.

          I find you completely representative of the strain of know-nothing, ideological movement Conservatism which is actively and consciously trying to ruin this country.

          Humph!! Take that hippie!

  • wsam

    The stroy seems to be Beauregard was appointed to enforce more transparency. He was in the process of doing this and was succeeding.

    Unfortunately for him R&D kept funding groups neo-conservatives in Canada and abroad wanted de-legitimized. Thus R&D had to be made to stop.

    This is about a bunch of infantile neo-conservatives getting their knickers in a knot and lashing out at the only targets they can.

    This isn't ideologue versus ideologue. This is about one group of people who were trying to make an arm's length, government funded NGO work bettter, and another group of people who disagree with the very work that NGO was founded to accomplish.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

    It's nice to see Warren Allmand back in the saddle again. A good man.

    • jarrid

      Warren Allmand is the walking definition of throwback. Time has passed that sixties relic by.

      • kcm

        Well that's that then. If Jarrid says Allmand is passe. it must be!

        • jarrid

          Warren Allmand defended the so-called "faint hope clause" ensuring that our country's worst killers could get their prison sentences reviewed automatically after a certain amount of time served. So, for example, Clifford Olson gets to taunt his victim's families every few years. It's that misplaced compassion that makes him a throwback: causing suffering to the innocent and alleviating it to the guilty. Precisely as*backwards.

          Have we gotten rid of the faint hope clause yet? I'm not certain because a goodly number of Liberals, including Warren Allmand, were crying about its repeal.

          • Blues Clair

            "The government bills that are going down because of prorogation include the repeal of the faint-hope clause that gives lifers a chance of parole after 15 years,"
            - Globe and Mail

          • jarrid

            Thanks BC. I thought it hadn't been passed. Can't wait 'til next month.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

      The criminal career of Warren Allmand ……

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Allmand

  • Blues Clair

    while you're waiting

    • kcm

      http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?…

      Some background reading. Of Interest, it's an old macleans piece. There is more to the story than Jarid asserts [ surprise!] However he is right instating the process for victims is very hard.

    • kcm

      'The Conservative government introduced a total of 17 law-and-order bills in parliament last year.

      Three of those actually were passed into law, one dealing with organized crime, another dealing with sentencing calculations for time served behind bars before conviction.

      The third, aimed at identity theft, actually came from that obstructing, eviscerating, Liberal-dominated Senate.

      The remaining 14 “law-and-order measures that are urgently needed,” as the PM put it, were automatically killed en masse when parliament recently was ordered shut down by the, um, PM.

      What a smoke and mirrors joke this PM is!
      Of those, 11 were sitting somewhere on the Commons agenda, and only three bills were anywhere near the Senate at the time of their demise.'

      • jarrid

        Well, you can only do so much when you're in a minority, kcm.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

          self parody – gotta love it
          thanks jarrid

  • Holly Stick

    Did someone mention UNRWA? Like how Harper defunding them strengthens Hamas?
    http://www.themarknews.com/articles/889-how-canad…
    Link from Antonian Zerbisias: http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2010/02/stand…

    And Murray Dobbin agrtees:
    http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/murray-dobbin/201…

  • kcm

    " I am pleased to state that the Office of the Inspector General concluded that the overall results of this review were positive. The data gathered and interviews held with various stakeholders in Canada and in partner countries have confirmed the effectiveness and relevance of Rights and Democracy's activities in the field as well as their compliance with Rights and Democracy's mission.

    As with all evaluations, there were a number of areas for improvement. This is healthy for an organization, especially one that is operating in different contexts with an overall objective fixed in the long term"

    So Beauregard puts together a report that meets the approval of the OIG. Whereas we have what from Braun? A series of hyped allegations and evidence??

    Where is Cotler on this? where is Mulroney, it's his baby, he should be defending it, no?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    May he rest in peace…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Well, like I said, the accusations and recriminations are endless in this story. I never heard of Beauregard until lately, and neither have most Canadians. What I do know is that an awful lot of ideologues seem intent on attacking another set of ideologues on this, while not admitting that they're ideologues. And, even though the story is new and unusual, the m.o. really isn't. Liberals love slapping a label of objectivity on themselves, while accusing their opponents of brute ideology. Just saying.

    • Holly Stick

      Upon what do you base your assumption that theres are just two groups of ideologues. What ideology do you think either group is espousing?

      Is this just the usual blogging Conservative wailing "But the Liberals did it too!!!!11!!"

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Based on watching people like Broadbent and others in action, and seeing the same m.o. over and over again.

        Actually, the claim isn't that "Liberals did it, too!" The claim is that liberals and leftists are the only ones who want to be able to do it.

        And, by the way, I'm just assuming it's ideology on both sides. Braun says it's about fixing certain things, and it's the ideologues on the left who are having a fit. For all I know, he could be right. Again, a very complex story to follow.

        • Holly Stick

          In other words you have no idea what was going on and you don't care to find out, but you hate leftists and so the leftists must always be wrong.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            No, I'm watching leftists engage in typical tactics. They want complete run of government agencies, and yell and scream when they don't get it. Just saying.

        • Jan

          Let's not forget Broadbent was dragged into this by accusations made by Steinberg.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            So that excuses Broadbent for engaging in reckless accusations of his own? For people who say you have the facts on your side, the justifications you use in defense I find quite fascinating.

          • Per

            Right on. I am not with the NDP but there is no excuse for what went on here. This Dennis F fellow seems unhinged.

    • wsam

      Is it possible that one side is wrong?

      Liberals say 2+2=4.

      Conservatives say those numbers equal five.

      Who knows what is right!!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Ah yes, it's those dimwitted Conservative ideologues who can't even do simple match. Gotchya. Not sure if some people realize they make my point for me.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          Not sure if you realise you're making their point for them. Enough with the stupid name-calling.

        • wsam

          Dennie,

          What is match?

          You. Fail.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

        No. Liberals say 2+2 has a different answer, realtive to your life circumstances, the color of your skin, and your income.

        • wsam

          No.

          Liberals respect our mathematical cultural inheritance and adhere to its values.

          Mathematician and general science guy, Sir Isaac Newton, was a Liberal. Though not a mathematician, so was Darwin. Optimus Prime volunteered on Sheila Copp’s leadership campaign. Bob Rae is a liberal. Most vowels are liberals, or liberal-leaning. Take the letter ‘a’, for example. Clearly a liberal.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

            Brilliant! Sorry I can only give on thumbs up! Optimus Prime! ha!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            Optimus Prime disavowed Ms. Copps when she reneged on her GST promise and was forced to resign.

          • wsam

            Optimus is now found in the Gerard Kennedy wing of the Liberal Party.

            Bumblebee, on the other hand, that's someone with interesting politics.

          • wsam

            Optimus is now found in the Gerard Kennedy wing of the Liberal Party.

            Bumblebee, on the other hand, that's someone with interesting politics.

          • Joops

            "Bumblebee, on the other hand, that's someone with interesting politics."

            And good taste in music.

  • kcm

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/righ…

    "We've had concerns about accountability, transparency. As we've pursued various concerns in this regard, we've encountered some resistance, and as a result, the organization has not been properly managed and certain steps have to be taken to get it back on track,” Mr. Gauthier said"

    This is interesting. I assume it's about the burglery – but i'm not so sure?

  • Anon

    Dennis_F is behaving very badly.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      For what it's worth, I've seriously got no problem with Dennis_F on this board. He's staying civil, he's on topic, he's addressing specific points raised by his interlocutors. He's the least of these comment boards' worries.

      • http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

        Worries?

        Open discourse usually cannot be controlled. That's a good thing. Wanting to control it is more worrisome. Insults and invective is surely to be frowned upon. But when broader ideological points, or poltical context is thrown into the mix this should be embraced.

        Below I comment on Dennis's assertion that this frenzy is based on a certain ideological one sided thinking.

        I suspect it's "off topic" to the extent it doesn't strictly follow the narrative of the post. But the point is directly related to the post and in response to it.

        One must be careful that "OFF TOPIC…FAIL" type comments by the posts authors are not based on message control or ideological thin skinnedness, rather than concern for civility.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          But, biff, it's not civil at all to treat your opponents like a veterinarian treats the Great African Heffalump. Who are you writing for here, Wells & your fellow commenters or some imaginary Undecided Surfer who needs to be converted into a fanatical anti-leftist pronto? I hate to say it but, because you're pitching your voice at that distant Undecided, you often come across as alarmingly unhinged.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Oh. I thought he came off as alarmingly unhinged by commenting on the virtue of open discourse by attacking Wells, who was supporting a civil, but open discourse.

  • http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

    Dennis,

    those on the left always claim to be centrists, while conservatism is cast as "radical' or freakish. It has a certain air of dishonesty about it, or perhaps ideological dillusion.

    Of course this is rampant among the leftist media, who continually point out opinions of individuals or experts as being "right wing" in an effort to marginalize and discredit.

    You'll note the virtual complete abscence of the words "left wing" from contemporary media reportage, as if the political bell curve didn't exhist at all. Just the moderate right thinking "center" and those nutty "right wingers".

    Paul Wells, care to comment on the use of "right wing" and the lack of corresponding "left wing" terminology?

    • FVerhoeven

      right wing versus none-existing left wing while trying to cling to that bell curve: excellent observation

    • Dunbar A. Fortiori

      You document no facts. You analyze no data. You quote no references. You present no evidence.

      Your thesis is merely an assertion without grounds.

      Post proof or retract.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    "The poisonous atmosphere at the centre, whose offices were burgled last month and two computers stolen, was further highlighted by confirmation that a private security firm specializing in hidden- camera installation and forensic computer examination has been hired for purposes top management declines to specify."

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Rights+De…

    Seriously?

    • Johnny Flag

      Seriously

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/canaidreform canaidreform

    The following statement of M. Beauregard's during his testimony before the foreign affairs committee is the best description I've seen of the relationship between R&D and the government. This would seem to oblige the feds to step in and resolve the mess.

    "We are an agency of the Government of Canada. It's a shared governance agency under the terminology that is used by Treasury Board. That's what we are, similar to the Asia Pacific Forum. There are five such agencies under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Shared governance means that the board is appointed by the government, and so is the president. There is a sort of co-management. It's an arm's-length relationship, but it's not a long-arm's-length relationship.'

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    I watched The National's report last night on this affair. I listened to the VP of B'nai B'rith and had shivers running down my spine.

    I had absolutely no idea that this organizations' views were that extreme.

  • wsam

    Comparing the Palestinians to the Nazis ruined his argument.

From Macleans