Here is my answer:
You had better tell your email server that you really want feedback since it rejected my email without even reading it!
Therefore I decided to send it to you [i.e. Publisher Sylvain Bedard] since the "editorial@...." route bounced back.
Regarding Gord's Schoolyard Tactics piece:
Gord may be right on much of what he says. Where I take issue is when he seems to think that proroguing parliament is a new tactic with the Tories.
"Powers noted that Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberal Prime Minister from 1993 to 2003, prorogued government four times during his time in office while Harper has prorogued Parliament three times since he came into power in 2006."-- [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/parliament_prorogued_091231/20091231?hub=TopStoriesV2]
I believe one also has to remember that Jean Chretien prorogued parliament WHEN he had a MAJORITY government. So if Gord thinks this time it is uncalled for, then what did he think then?
One must also remember that the Liberals in the Senate have been basically acting contrary to the will of the Canadian people who elected MP's from all opposition parties.
Therefore I decided to send it to you [i.e. Publisher Sylvain Bedard] since the "editorial@...." route bounced back.
Regarding Gord's Schoolyard Tactics piece:
Gord may be right on much of what he says. Where I take issue is when he seems to think that proroguing parliament is a new tactic with the Tories.
"Powers noted that Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberal Prime Minister from 1993 to 2003, prorogued government four times during his time in office while Harper has prorogued Parliament three times since he came into power in 2006."-- [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/parliament_prorogued_091231/20091231?hub=TopStoriesV2]
I believe one also has to remember that Jean Chretien prorogued parliament WHEN he had a MAJORITY government. So if Gord thinks this time it is uncalled for, then what did he think then?
One must also remember that the Liberals in the Senate have been basically acting contrary to the will of the Canadian people who elected MP's from all opposition parties.
Even though all parties in the House of Commons agreed, the unelected Liberals in the Senate have held up or stopped the will of the Government of Canada.
This should not be. It is time for an elected termed Senate which scrutinizes and "polishes" bills but does not go against the entire Parliament which WAS elected to do the will of the people.
I think this proroguing IS an appropriate tactic for many reasons at this time but most of all to support Canada's Olympic athletes during February. Also it may give the opportunity for all parties to cool down and decide what is in the greater good of Canada.
I have not heard ONE person in public, talking about the "treatment" of terrorists who would cut off our soldier's heads in a moment if they had the chance other than the news media and opposition complainers.
I think this proroguing IS an appropriate tactic for many reasons at this time but most of all to support Canada's Olympic athletes during February. Also it may give the opportunity for all parties to cool down and decide what is in the greater good of Canada.
I have not heard ONE person in public, talking about the "treatment" of terrorists who would cut off our soldier's heads in a moment if they had the chance other than the news media and opposition complainers.
I believe yes we do need to have standards but we certainly can not create an instant "little Canada" in Afghanistan when their culture has not progressed anywhere near to our own.
What do we do? Capture and imprison ALL terrorists or Taliban [not sure there is much difference] or realize that when we leave we cannot take them with us... sooner or later the enemy combatants will have to answer to the government of Afghanistan, infant that it may be and suffer the consequences of treasonous behaviour against THEIR government. Perhaps a few of them already have.
What do we do? Capture and imprison ALL terrorists or Taliban [not sure there is much difference] or realize that when we leave we cannot take them with us... sooner or later the enemy combatants will have to answer to the government of Afghanistan, infant that it may be and suffer the consequences of treasonous behaviour against THEIR government. Perhaps a few of them already have.
It is certainly NOT our responsibility to FORCE our standards on the government of Afghanistan even though we may disapprove.
Yes we can explain why WE do not torture [If indeed there was any torture. Some reports seem to indicate that nothing more happened than would happen in a fight in a schoolyard. Are you listening Gord?] But inevitably THEY will have to decide what to do without us interfering with their due process given that it is NOT our country.
Yes we can explain why WE do not torture [If indeed there was any torture. Some reports seem to indicate that nothing more happened than would happen in a fight in a schoolyard. Are you listening Gord?] But inevitably THEY will have to decide what to do without us interfering with their due process given that it is NOT our country.
P.S. May I respectfully request that if the Investment Executive is going to engage in partisan politics rather than financial matters that you provide a comments section after each article sot that those who see another side to this political debate may have a chance to democratically have their say?
Or are you going to continue to prorogue comments which may not agree with your own? If that is the case, perhaps Gord should re-think or retract his article.
