More Charges of Contempt for Tory Secrecy

[Machjo]

First, the documentation that the opposition is moaning about relates solely to the military and is further complicated by the fact that multiple nations are involved. There is a reason that all governments don't make public the details about their military operations and is has to do with the safety of their personnel and generating the intended results without announcing their plans to the opposing militants.

There are no "dangerous precedents" here, and seeing that you've dragged fundamental democracy into the picture, it'd be interesting to see if the public was truly as infatuated with this issue (or the detainee) as are the opposition parties.

I never said anything about the Public. I said Parliament. Parliament is hardly the public. Take the cameras out of Parliament, get the non-Parliamentarians out of the room, close the doors, and give them access. How else can they be sure the government is not hiding criminal activities from Parliament?

Should there be criminal activities there, or alternatively moral improprieties, then at least our Parliamentarians have a right to know, seeing that they cannot represent their constituents' interests if kept in the dark. Their job is to serve us. If they can't know anything, then how can they serve us properly? What's the point of having a Parliament then?

I agree the public doesn't necessarily need to know, but as long as Cabinet is not elected by Parliament on a regular basis, then owing to that lack of checks and balances, Parliament need to know.

 

[Slim Chance]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/92406-voting-cabinet-good-idea.html

I've created this thread as a spin off idea, though I could see all the parties foaming at the mouth at this suggestion. Me Gawd, imagine the possibility of an independent MP having some influence as to who will form the Cabinet.

Then what's the point of having any form of party representation at all? You'd breed a system that encouraged the development of multiple 'micro-parties' all capable of selling their support for whatever reason.

Nothing would get accomplished

 

[Machjo]

Then what's the point of having any form of party representation at all? You'd breed a system that encouraged the development of multiple 'micro-parties' all capable of selling their support for whatever reason.

Nothing would get accomplished

Then you make the ballots secret so that they can't be sold. Yet, with a yearly election, the Cabinet would be kept in check. Other than that, Cabinet would reserve every right to keep secrets from Parliament on matters of national security. But since it would be elected by Parliament, Parliament would trust it and have full confidence in that Cabinet is acting in good faith. Right now, Cabinet does not have enough accountability for the power it's wielding.

 

[CDNBear]

I never said anything about the Public. I said Parliament. Parliament is hardly the public. Take the cameras out of Parliament, get the non-Parliamentarians out of the room, close the doors, and give them access. How else can they be sure the government is not hiding criminal activities from Parliament?

Didn't seem to be a big deal in the past, when matters of International relations and military secrecy were concerned.

Should there be criminal activities there, or alternatively moral improprieties, then at least our Parliamentarians have a right to know, seeing that they cannot represent their constituents' interests if kept in the dark. Their job is to serve us. If they can't know anything, then how can they serve us properly? What's the point of having a Parliament then?

Who said they can't know anything?

I agree the public doesn't necessarily need to know, but as long as Cabinet is not elected by Parliament on a regular basis, then owing to that lack of checks and balances, Parliament need to know.

We elect these members every 4 years.

I don't trust politicians as a rule, but I trust some more then others. Taliban Jack shouldn't have access to my SIN let alone ours and other nations military info.

 

[Machjo]

It's a question of democracy and accountability in the end, especially with a minority party standing on its own with no majority coalition behind it.

 

[CDNBear]

It's a question of democracy and accountability in the end, especially with a minority party standing on its own with no majority coalition behind it.

Your point?

A documents availability used to rest solely on the discretion of the Minister concerned. Without question. Without threats and coercion to produce it, especially on matter concerning the military and multinational involvement.

Until now that is.

Which leads me to believe, this has nothing to do with democracy, accountability or anything other then ideological hypocrisy.

 

[Machjo]

Didn't seem to be a big deal in the past, when matters of International relations and military secrecy were concerned.

Maybe I just hadn't though of it as much in the past. Now that I have thought of it, it is an issue regardless what party is in power.

Who said they can't know anything?
We elect these members every 4 years.

Parliament, not Cabinet. What we're talking about here is extra power given to Cabinet beyond the power Parliament has. We vote in individual MP's and we expect each one to represent us equally.

I don't trust politicians as a rule, but I trust some more then others. Taliban Jack shouldn't have access to my SIN let alone ours and other nations military info.

My point exactly. You don't trust Jack, but clearly his constituents do, just as Harper's constituents trust Harper. Though I'm sure not many of Harper's constituents trust Jack any more than Jack's constituents trust Harper.

Democracy sucks, don't it.

 

[Machjo]

Your point?

A documents availability used to rest solely on the discretion of the Minister concerned. Without question. Without threats and coercion to produce it, especially on matter concerning the military and multinational involvement.

Until now that is.

Which leads me to believe, this has nothing to do with democracy, accountability or anything other then ideological hypocrisy.

If you've read my threads in the past, you'll see I've thrashed Lib and NDP members just as much. But it just happens that Harpy's running the show now so obviously I'm not going to live in a time warp and keep harping on Chretien. He's gone now. Move on.

And regardless of the past, if Cabinet Ministers have a right to secrecy, that could be reasonable as long as there are some kind of checks and balances.

 

[Slim Chance]

I never said anything about the Public.

Then why did you post this?

The ability of a government to keep state secrets from the representatives of the people without at least some kind of checks and balances is dangerous for national security..... I'm not accusing Harper of anything right now other than keeping secrets, but the very ability to keep secrets could in theory allow a government to have the military engage in clandestine wars around the world, and then use these wars to manipulate the public however it wants.

Should there be criminal activities there, or alternatively moral improprieties, then at least our Parliamentarians have a right to know, seeing that they cannot represent their constituents' interests if kept in the dark. Their job is to serve us. If they can't know anything, then how can they serve us properly? What's the point of having a Parliament then?

Who's laws? NATO, the UN, Afghanistan, Canada's or all of the above in a complex, simultaneous fashion?

Seems to me that the issue relates to if you want a military at all.

I agree the public doesn't necessarily need to know, but as long as Cabinet is not elected by Parliament on a regular basis, then owing to that lack of checks and balances, Parliament need to know.

You're jumping all over the place on this issue... If you agree that "the public doesn't necessarily need to know", but preface that with "Parliamentarians have a right to know, seeing that they cannot represent their constituents' interests if kept in the dark".

 

[Machjo]

Then why did you post this?








Who's laws? NATO, the UN, Afghanistan, Canada's or all of the above in a complex, simultaneous fashion?

Seems to me that the issue relates to if you want a military at all.





You're jumping all over the place on this issue... If you agree that "the public doesn't necessarily need to know", but preface that with "Parliamentarians have a right to know, seeing that they cannot represent their constituents' interests if kept in the dark".

How are you confusing the public with Parliament? Parliament has a right to know, or alternatively have more say in who forms Cabinet. It has to be one or the other.

When did I ever say the public has a right to know? Quote me please.

 

[Machjo]

Parliament is the people sitting at the House of Commons, our Members of Parliament. They are not the public at large.

 

[CDNBear]

Maybe I just hadn't though of it as much in the past. Now that I have thought of it, it is an issue regardless what party is in power.

I you suffer from the same affliction many people do. It's called selective outrage.

Parliament, not Cabinet. What we're talking about here is extra power given to Cabinet beyond the power Parliament has. We vote in individual MP's and we expect each one to represent us equally.

Again, your point? I don't give a rats ass which politician sits in what Ministerial position, really, I don't.

My point exactly. You don't trust Jack, but clearly his constituents do, just as Harper's constituents trust Harper. Though I'm sure not many of Harper's constituents trust Jack any more than Jack's constituents trust Harper.

But Harper's Gov't is doing exactly as every Parliament has done before him. Nothing new here. Just media spin and partisan BS.

Democracy sucks, don't it.

Not really. It will if the LPoC along with a bias Speaker over throw a duly elected Gov't though.

If you've read my threads in the past, you'll see I've thrashed Lib and NDP members just as much. But it just happens that Harpy's running the show now so obviously I'm not going to live in a time warp and keep harping on Chretien. He's gone now. Move on.

Ya, I've seen you "Liberal bashing". To say I'm not convinced would be an understatement. I was, but I think I missed a few things.

And regardless of the past, if Cabinet Ministers have a right to secrecy, that could be reasonable as long as there are some kind of checks and balances.

Great, then rant on about that without the partisan spin.

 

[Machjo]

I you suffer from the same affliction many people do. It's called selective outrage.

Or maybe it's called being outside of Canada for many years, and so I tended to follow Canadian politics a little less.

 

[Machjo]

Great, then rant on about that without the partisan spin.

What partisan spin? What party do you think I support?

 

[Machjo]

I think the problem is that because CPC forms the government, people then confuse any criticism of the government with criticism of the CPC per se, when in reality it's nothing of the sort. What am I to do, criticize the Liberal or New Democratic or even Green or even Libertarian Parties of Canada for the way the administer the country? They're not administering it so obviously I won't talk about them. Common sense.

 

[Slim Chance]

When did I ever say the public has a right to know? Quote me please.

"We vote in individual MP's and we expect each one to represent us equally."

If the individual MP's are to effectively represent us all equally, the premise that open communication is fundamental.

Further, as the House is open to all, how would one truly keep state secrets if they can be addressed directly in the House. Conversely, if that discourse or communication is not permitted, then what is the point of releasing the info at all?

 

[CDNBear]

Or maybe it's called being outside of Canada for many years, and so I tended to follow Canadian politics a little less.

This isn't about contemporary politics, this is historical practice we're talking about here.

What partisan spin?

You claim to have a problem with the process, but you heap all your scorn on one man.

What party do you think I support?

Don't know, don't care. I see you focusing contempt on Harper for doing exactly what the Gov't has historically been allowed to do.

Just an observation.

 

[Machjo]

It's ust like when I talk of American politics. The focus is more on the Democrats currently in power. Would you then criticize me for being a closet Republican? For cryin' out loud, McCain is not in power, so how can I criticize his running of the country if he ain't runnin' it.

 

[Machjo]

"We vote in individual MP's and we expect each one to represent us equally."

If the individual MP's are to effectively represent us all equally, the premise that open communication is fundamental.

Yes, among Parliamentarians, not necessarily the public? How did you get the idea that I meant the public from that statement? to represent us effectively, either they need to have access to the information or at least be able to elect a Cabinet they can all trust.

Further, as the House is open to all, how would one truly keep state secrets if they can be addressed directly in the House. Conversely, if that discourse or communication is not permitted, then what is the point of releasing the info at all?

Then if it must be kept secret from Parliamentarians, then Parliamentarians must ensure that the PM and Cabinet are ones the vast majority of MPs can trust.

 

[CDNBear]

I think the problem is that because CPC forms the government, people then confuse any criticism of the government with criticism of the CPC per se, when in reality it's nothing of the sort.

Not at all. I'm not confused. I chastise the Gov't for wrong doing all the time. So long as it's wrong doing.

What am I to do, criticize the Liberal or New Democratic or even Green or even Libertarian Parties of Canada for the way the administer the country?

Criticize the policy you don't like. Over the last couple days, you've ignored several certainties, and offered "Well when you say it that way", only to return to the same line of illogical criticism of a singular person.

I could be wrong and you could just be naive.

They're not administering it so obviously I won't talk about them. Common sense.

Not really.

But I really have no need of debating you on you. Lets agree to disagree.