Friday, December 19, 2008

CSIS and lawyer-client confidentiality: Credit where credit is due.


I threw down a challenge, and Mr. Alcock rose to the occasion. Any other BTs who want to register their unqualified outrage are welcome to leave a link in the comments section.
Posted by at

8 comments:

Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

I accepted the challenge.. and I'll accept the invitation, my post is here.

10:15 AM
CC said...

Good job, roblaw, but just to be pedantic, the proper spelling is "vigilant." That's kind of an embarrassing word to screw up.

10:17 AM
Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

..hahaha.. duly noted :)

10:25 AM
Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

..there are times when I truly think that there is room for a truly "Progressive" party, who eschews "right" and "left" labels.. and brings together that great middle - people who want to treat eachother reasonably and who want to be able to do their best to secure the welfare of themselves and their families.. and who aren't obsessed, from the right or the left, with telling all their neighbors how to live their life if it isn't just like theirs.

10:30 AM
Sheena said...

Roblaw might be my kindred spirit. Current labels are fucked. None of them fit anymore.

12:01 PM
Metro said...

Ah, it's a nice idea. And a recipe for a party that will shred itself on the first contentious issue it bumps into.

For example, I generally think roblaw is well-expressed and sensible on many issues. However, what happens when our United Labelless Party (ULP) runs headlong into gun-control?

Shall we take my position: That it's a Federal task? Or his, that it's a Provincial responsibility?

That said, I really think that the solution to the current Parliamentary crisis would be for Mr. Harper to invite a number of Liberal MPs into a power-sharing arrangement.

Alas that he has such trouble understanding the second half of the term "power-sharing."

2:42 PM
CanadaHolly said...

roblaw said...

" ..there are times when I truly think that there is room for a truly "Progressive" party, who eschews "right" and "left" labels.. and brings together that great middle - people who want to treat each other reasonably and who want to be able to do their best to secure the welfare of themselves and their families.. and who aren't obsessed, from the right or the left, with telling all their neighbors how to live their life if it isn't just like theirs."

Sadly, such a party needs a way to mobilize gobs of money. The party has two jobs -- one is to advance their agenda, whatever it is. The other is to build and strengthen the party so it is a strong tool for that purpose. Who's going to put millions or billions into the ULP Party? And what are the chances ULP will attract good candidates, who are really not that thick on the ground, if they can't offer monetary and clerical and other support?

Much easier to hijack the structure and resources and even the history of an existing party. (Harper's bunch calling themselves Tories, reminds me of the Major General from Pirates of Penzance, who bought a great estate complete with its ancestors.)

Now, what feeble and helpless party is lying about, ready to be taken over in this manner?

Noni

2:58 PM
Robert G. Harvie, Q.C. said...

LOL.. yes, I'm a dreamer.. sure, there would be internal arguments in the ULP.. but, there are arguments in any party.. I mean, I've been to PC policy meetings, and I've been in arguments where there are massive differences between "conservatives".. so, I don't think that not having some ideological blinders on gives a party "substance" in reality.. I mean, look at George Bush - is there a more socialist move that injecting money into business and banks under government control to some degree?? Don't get much more right of center than GWB.. and even the NDP understands that the autoworkers will be out of work if auto business doesn't find a way to succeed, so at their soul, they still understand the need for capitalism.. So.. why the labels?

Or, at very least, why obligate yourself, by a label, to look at problems from one perspective? Why attack those who don't agree, instead of learning why they don't and determining if there is something to why they have that position?

I would totally agree with the Con/Lib coalition.. talk about stability, in theory.. Ignatieff is already a small 'c' conservative in many respects, and with him taking the helm instead of Bob Ray.. well, why not cooperate. But, sadly, I also agree that there appears to be insufficient appetite for true cooperation. We can hope though..

4:09 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)