Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

How to answer a question

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:17pm - 50 Comments

From Question Period this afternoon, the definitive moment of this particular moment in our collective history.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the faulty deal that the Prime Minister signed with the coalition of the unwilling shows why only a judicial inquiry is ever going to get to the bottom of the Afghan torture scandal. The government tried to silence diplomat Richard Colvin, who was trying to blow the whistle on torture. DND officials were sending memos begging to silence him. Why did the government reassign people who were trying to raise the issue of torture? Why did it want to stop Richard Colvin from exposing the truth and reporting on what he saw?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, three political parties worked to get a responsible resolution of this question. Unfortunately, the NDP did not, but why would we be surprised? The deputy leader of the NDP knew full well what she was saying. She made statements that could have been made by Hamas, Hezbollah or anybody else with no repercussions from that party whatsoever. I hope the leader of the NDP will come clean and actually face up to his responsibilities on that question. While I am on my feet, I also hope that he will help us pass a reform of the pardon system, which Canadians have been waiting weeks for.

Tags: Afghanistan, documents, Hamas, Hezbollah, house of commons, Israel, Jack Layton, justice, Karla Homolka, Libby Davies, pardon, Parliament, parliamentary privilege, privilege, Question Period, Richard Colvin, Stephen Harper, torture, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

If Libby isn't sacked for this after all of this it will not reflect well on the NDP they need to deal with these anti-semitic memebrs they have courted for some time now.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

One of these days real anti-semitism is going to rear its ugly head in this country and nobody will care because retards like you have been crying wolf for too long now.

Standing By

Here, here. Well said.
http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

It already has, Robert; you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge it, when it doesn't come from basement-dwelling stormtrooper-fantasists.

http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

No it hasn't. Even Jonathan Kay now admits there's practically no real anti-semitism in this country.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Speaking of heads and rears…
http://intensedebate.com/people/MMarkinCanada MMarkinCanada

The issue isn't that her remarks were anti-Semitic but that what she said is inconsistent with her party's policy–and she is its foreign affairs critic and deputy house leader.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Our government inaction.
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/mowat mowat

Wasn't there a rumour a few weeks back about Libby Davies leaving federal politics in order to run for mayor?

Bonnie N

No that was Judy W (cannot guess how to spell her last name.) But it rhymes with Wash-a-lease-a-lee-z.

This was a huge mistake by Ms. Davies and she owes the people of Canada and Parliament an apology. For her not to stand up in Parliament and issue an apology is a gross mistake and should have happened today.

TwoYen

I agree. She needs to make a statement in the House of Commons and not just that she's sorry she got caught. She must either (1) renounce her own statement that Israel is an occupying state or (2) resign. It's her choice.

http://intensedebate.com/people/ZestyMordant ZestyMordant

Here error was not that Israel is an occupying state, her mistake was in the date. She said that the occupation started in 1948, when in fact it started in 1967.

That is a very important error, and she should apologize. She should also take the opportunity to explain exactly why she is opposed to the occupation that has lasted for more than 40 years.
Greg

Why not make her wear a hair shirt and then apply some self flagellation too? Then we can make her eat worms. All I want to know is where is Ezra Levant and his Free Speech Warriors! Save us Ezra! Hear our call! The rest is silence.

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/mowat mowat

Oh yeah, right, thanks.

Looks like Libby Davies has already done the municipal politics gig – and has already tried to run for mayor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Davies

In any case, here's my free PR advice for her: Continue to admit mistake – an easy mistake to make (date confusion), but unacceptable for her as a critic of Israeli policies – will go to Israel this summer on fact-finding mission…

Otherwise, I doubt her constitutes care much.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

I just read that as well – I looked at it because at one point it (wiki) said that she was at one time a card carrying member of the Communist Party – that section is no longer there and has been edited.

Bonko

"Afghan torture scandal"

What Afghan torture scandal? There has been no credible evidence of actual torture, Colvin's report uses the phrase "torture and/or the threat of torture", which is sort of like saying one is pregnant and/or not pregnant, and his one claim of actual torture is based on interviewing 4 captured Taliban, who said they were tortured, which is what you'd expect them to tell a gullible Canadian bureaucrat.

Besides, Layton and the NDP were longtime supporters of the Afghanistan occupation up until it became politically expedient to oppose, Harper wasn't even in Parliament when Jack and his Marxist pals supported the invasion. If torture did indeed take place, it is Layton, not Harper, who should be charged with a war crime, since it was his brilliant idea to send troops there in the first place.

For Layton to refer to this as a "torture scandal" is the dirtiest of politics, and that's why they always lose elections.

http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

Oh I don't know I heard that the one detainee was actually assualted with his own shoe – that must have been torture alright!
Brian

Yeah… or what you'd expect them to say if they were tortured. That's the whole &%$%-ing point of this assessment of data, you slow-witted troglodyte.

I, personally, want to know whether or not the country I love has lost the moral high-ground in a war. Any good soldier, including my father, will tell you in any battle it's best to hold the high ground. He's retired right now but what's breaking his heart is the simple fact no one is willing to get to the facts.

THAT'S what's pissing him off.

Bonko

"you slow-witted troglodyte."

Listen you mediocre little affirmative action case: we conservatives embrace merit, we embrace genetic determinism, and we embrace IQ tests; we eschew the quotas you support that have filled the workplace and academia with bimbos. We are white males, largely, and have substantially higher IQs than the public at large AS A MATTER OF WELL DOCUMENTED SCIENCE.

Get that? You're retards, we're the smart ones. You need affirmative action, we cut it on our own without unions and without employment equity and we don't whine about racism and sexism like you do as a cheap excuse for your mediocrity. You're stupid, so goddamned stupid that you demand handouts from taxpayers (ie conservatives) because you can't compete with conservatives.

Stick your shmaltzy tear jerker about your dad in your ear, crybaby, and talk like a MAN. If your father was stupid enough to think that palling around with the Afghans wouldn't result in torture then he's brain dead.

Mediocre little affirmative action case herb. KNOW YOUR PLACE. Don't EVER backtalk a conservative again, herb.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

"AS A MATTER OF WELL DOCUMENTED SCIENCE"

I'll bite. Please share some links to the well documented science demonstrating that Conservatives have higher IQs than average. Or is it white males you're referring to? Either way, back up the claim…

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Actually, I saw a program with the researcher on this topic and he's wrong. The researcher (I can't think of his name right now) said that Liberals were more intelligent and more concerned with social justice, etc.

The same researcher said that Conservatives tend to be hard working, but are afraid of any changes and therefore do not like to move forward. They like the safe little box.

It may have been Steve Paikin's show – I'll try to find something on it.

As usual Bonk is wrong. Besides, look at his response – is that the sign of intelligence?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/1/…

This guy? Maybe his is the "20th study" we always have to watch out for! I'm sure Bonko will clear this all up for us, shortly.

For the record, I have little use for IQ-based studies – they're problematic for all kinds of reasons.
Bonko

"For the record, I have little use for IQ-based studies "

OK. You reject the very concept of intelligence itself. And the scientific method.

I would too if I were a dim witted Liberal. I'm done with you, somebody bring me a fresh Liberal.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I may be dim witted, but I'm not a Liberal. Sorry to disappoint.

But interpreting my above comment to mean I reject the very concept of intelligence doesn't reflect all that well on your wits, I have to say. And scientific method?! Is it not possible to find a branch of science problematic without dismissing the entire enterprise?

Please share some of these studies you keep alluding to. I promise not to pre-judge.
Bonko

I generally refuse on principle to step and fetch data for Liberals, Liberal, because in nearly every case the request is disingenuous and meant to waste my time. That goes double when the requester says he has doubts about the data in the first place.

I've provided a link to the Gaunilon fellow below which substantiates much of what I claim as well as a study by Rushton because I'm in a good mood tonight, don't get used to it.

Getting genetic and intelligence wrong costs us trillions in wasted tax dollars on unscientific public policy doomed to fail. It's not an abstract, academic debate, it's serious business that is wreaking very tangible havoc on what's left of Western Civilization.
http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

I find Bonkos commentary to be vile, and mostly incorrect.

There is a kernal of fact buried in the manure thou: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligenc…

I'm generally of the opinion that genetic variation is too small to make a substantial difference, but there are smart men on both sides (and not all racist I'm sure).
Gary

"and more concerned with social justice, etc.
"
And that's why Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals? Uh Huh! Tell us more BS please!
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Oh please – this is too funny. I wasn't aware that you put your political affiliation on a charity cheque – LOL.

Besides, that has nothing to do with social justice – ah the Con intelligence
Bhagat

Hi! thank you for all these suggestions and good commands.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

I'll offer up this episode of Steve Paikin's The Agenda.
Bonko

I don't have time to educate you, your (feigned – you know it's true you're just being PC) ignorance isn't my problem, you're a smart guy (not really, I'm flattering you) so google it yourself. I repeat, it's not my job to spoon feed you screamingly obvious stuff that small children grok, it's your job not to be ignorant.

You could help maintain a civil discourse here by hassling Brian for his obvious troll job (slow-witted troglodyte?) instead of hassling me for stating science that you know to be true. Do that for me and I might consider giving you the information you seek.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I did Google it, and found the study I linked to above. At least clarify for me if you are claiming Conservatives, white males, or both to be more intelligent than average. I'm honestly unaware of a credible and longstanding body of reliable science to support any of it, but it could honestly be a gap in my learning (one of many!).

It's your job to support seemingly outlandish knowledge claims. I'm quite respectfully awaiting the evidence, and am willing to consider any you provide.
Bonko

"At least clarify for me if you are claiming Conservatives, white males, or both to be more intelligent than average."

Why would I do that when you've just admitted you think science is bunk in your comment above?

"For the record, I have little use for IQ-based studies – they're problematic for all kinds of reasons. "

I am to clarify points and stepnfetch data that you believe to be irrelevant anyway? Er, no. You've never uttered a politically incorrect thought and you're not going to start now, no matter how much data I present. Hell, you'd probably launch a human rights commission complaint.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Saying studies of a certain sort are problematic is not the same as dismissing them outright.

I've actually done some reading in the field of social pyschology, and in particular followed the debate surrounding the publication of The Bell Curve (are you familiar with it?).

I take issue with IQ studies that don't sufficiently allow for the culturally bound nature of such tests, and the field remains somewhat muddy with regard to the particular interplay of genetics and environment.

That said, I'm always willing to consider any evidence you may wish to share. So far, all you've given is a lot of bluster and assumptions.

Why don't you just admit you know next to nothing about the research and debates in social psychology, and that your claim about higher IQs amongst conservatives is not justifed? Or, share the evidence.
Bonko

See above and below comments. Now look down your shirt, and spell attic.

Brian

If you don't like what the troops say… denounce the troops!
Greg

Oh oh, the Rushtonites are running free again. BTW, his research showed that Asians rule!
Gaunilon

Let's not conflate conservatives with Nazis. "Genetic determinism"?? Sounds disturbingly like Nietzche's master race doctrine. It's anything but "conservative", or Christian (which the plurality of conservatives are).

Also, I object to this notion that lefties shouldn't "talk back" to conservatives. I honestly wish they'd "talk back" more rather than just trying to shut us up. Your "KNOW YOUR PLACE. Don't EVER backtalk" command is more at home on a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal than under any kind of conservative tent.

Bonko

""Genetic determinism"?? Sounds disturbingly like Nietzche's master race doctrine."

No, it is mainstream science. It's your use of scare quotes around a really, really well documented fact that disturbs me. Are you seriously suggesting that genetic determinism is not scientifically valid? Because that is astonishingly unscientific. It actually sounds like Darwin; you're rejecting Darwin.

Jeez, Lothar of the Hill People had the concept down pat 10,000 years ago when he noticed that breeding a big animal with another big animal would often result in a big animal – how the hell do you…no, you're pulling my leg, or playing the PC game, you can't possibly believe that.

"Also, I object to this notion blah blah blah"

Yelling works, and is called for when he starts with the troglodyte stuff. It matters immensely – to non-sociopaths anyway – who started it; go lecture him, not me, I'm merely responding to his extreme aggression.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

(pssst: "intelligence" doesn't lend itself to measure in the same way as physical size. Do you even know how IQ scores are derived?)
Gaunilon

"No, it is mainstream science."

No, it is not. Genetic inheritance of traits and characteristics is mainstream science, and yes that can include talents and strengths. However, it is not "determinism", which suggests that one's path in life is determined by one's genetic makeup. Nor has it been established to have anything to do with skin colour or political affiliation so far as I know. There is evidence that male IQ is more widely distributed than female IQ, but the mean is pretty much the same so if the difference in standard deviation has any bearing on anything, it only applies at the far ends of the spectrum, not for the general population.

I'll agree with you on this much: Darwinism, when applied without any concept of the human soul, does lead to Nietzche's master race doctrine. That's exactly why Nazism took off in the early 20th century. Again, all this is quite contrary to both Christianity and standard conservatism.

"Yelling works…I'm merely responding to his extreme aggression."
You're acting like a leftist. Please stop.
Bonko

"However, it is not "determinism", which suggests that one's path in life is determined by one's genetic makeup."

But it is!

"Nor has it been established to have anything to do with skin colour or political affiliation so far as I know. "

The US Military has been IQ testing for 70 years. They have an enormous amount of data on the subject and they can't afford to dick around with political correctness. Check their data. Google "the fundamental constant of sociology".

You've never heard of The Bell Curve or IQ And the Wealth of Nations or Phillipe Rushton or Frank Salter or Steve Sailer? I don't believe you.

"but the mean is pretty much the same"

Nope, men are smarter on average (ie mean) although they've all but removed math and other fields where men excel from modern "IQ tests" now to close the gap. My opinion is that women are able to mimic male intelligence under test conditions pretty closely, but once they walk out of the classroom they revert to female style thinking which is substantially less intelligent than male intelligence, so the gap is wider than it appears. But here's some data: D. N. Jackson and J. P. Rushton (Intelligence 34 (2006) 479-486), in which they reported that men had a 3.63 IQ-point advantage over women.

You're making a argument similar to Ben Stein, who argues that Darwin leads to the Holocaust. Well, do we throw out science when we don't like the results?

The rejection of genetic determinism leads to trillions of dollars wasted on bad public policy and social programs which are doomed to fail, No Child Left Behind and Obama's Race To The Top being two egregious examples where teachers (and of course racism) are wrongly being blamed for the IQ gap. Are you familiar with the term "disparate impact"? You should be.

You need to read everything you can here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/ , La Griffe is a legend in my circles, he is known as the Zorro of statistics.
Matlock

And here's opposing data: Carretta and Doub (Personality & Individual Differences 24 (1998) 585-593) demonstrated that women outperformed men by 4.5 IQ points.

And here's a viewpoint on both: Hunt and Carlson (Perspectives on Psychological Science 2(2) (2007) 194-213) state that both studies fall prone to self-selection bias in that neither was based on a random sample of a general population. Rushton & Jensen was biased towards students interested in college (since it was based on SAT's), and Hunt and Carlson was biased towards members of the Air Force. Neither study can speak to the counterfactual of what is the difference among non-college bound students, or non-Air Force members, and thus cannnot be generalized to the public in general.

"Well, do we throw out science when we don't like the results?"

We never "throw out" science, no, but many studies do make errors in statistical technique that can greatly limit the internal or external validity of its findings, yes.

Study in gender and racial differences is still very much an "open" question – no consensus has been reached – and it's irresponsible to go around flogging people on the head saying "men are smarter on average" because you like the findings of one study only, and believe that to be generally accepted fact.
Matlock

Typo alert, my last "Hunt and Carlson" should be "Carretta and Doub".

Gary

"has lost the moral high-ground in a war."

Right, along with a bunch of dead soldiers!
Does any war have high morals in the end?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Twisted_Mentat Twisted_Mentat

ok… you guys keep working on getting IntenseDebate taken away from MacLeans while the rest of us will talk like grown-ups.

http://intensedebate.com/people/amherstvw amherstvw

There has been a cover up of inconvenient facts by the Liberals and Conservatives.
They have fiddled around long enough with the MOU that it is now time for their entitled vacation entitlements.

Do they all think Canadians will be confident that international law and human rights will be respected the next time we use military force internationally?

And Prime Minister Harper doesn't understand the responsibilities of his office during Question Period.
Livebloggin Junkie

Ask a facetious question get a facetious answer.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Except, it cannot even be fairly described as a facetious answer.

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/michaeltripper michaeltripper

Beyond the right wing lies being used to stop progressive voices from being heard in parliament.

THE REALITY:
Amid controversy over Israel comments, Vancouver MP Libby Davies finds support from Jewish group http://www.straight.com/article-329356/vancouver/…

Vancouver activist stands up for MP Libby Davies over Israel remarks http://www.straight.com/article-329293/vancouver/…

This is ridiculous posturing – methinks the right doth protest too much.

Robert McClelland definitely has some of the consequences of this attempt to shout down historical reality.

As someone born from a father whose entire family died due the Nazis because they were Lithuanian Jews, I too am sick and disgusted and no longer can support the thug-ocracy that runs Israel.