Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The ever-growing enemies list

Globe and Mail Blog Post

Latest comment posted at 4:41 AM EST 26/08/08

Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes:
    Adam, I am normally inhibited from saying or implying that anybody is really stupid, but in Tony Clement's case, it does seem to be the best explanation more much of his behavior.

    Religious folk often must deal with contradictions between their beliefs and established facts. Where those conflicts involve an employment situation, career counseling may be a good idea.

    For example, my dad was a young-earther - he believed that the world was created roughly 6000 years ago. In his life, this was not much of a problem, but I would not recommend someone with his beliefs for a job running the Royal Tyrrel Museum!

    Another example: Tony is definitely the wrong guy for the Health Minister job. His narrow beliefs clearly have been interfering with the requirements of his job. Health of Canadians should and must take precedence over an individual minister's wacky religious beliefs.

    The War on Drugs is very popular among the morally superior, but the only Canadians who really benefit are organized crime. You could say that social conservatives are the best friends the bikers ever had.

    Kudos to the CMA for standing up to Conservative nonsense. The public appreciates some truthiness now and then, and we surely don't hear much of that from the Harperites.
  2. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Ironically, I think that the closest parallel to the predicament the Conservatives have built for themselves is what the Ontario Teachers' Union faced after the Harris years.

    The Teachers Union discovered that they could wield great political power, by striking and blaming the party in power.

    They helped bring down the Liberals, in favour of the NDP. Hooray!

    The NDP wouldn't give them everything they wanted. So they went after the NDP, bringing in the PCs. Horray?

    Then they attacked the PCs under Harris.

    And now their natural political friends are......who?

    Likewise, the Conservatives are systematically going after every professional class in Canada. Scientists. Civil Servants. Judges and Lawyers. Doctors. Academics. Artists. Journalists.

    All condemned and vilified under no uncertain terms.

    How much do you have to pay me to want to destroy you?

    Nothing. It's only available for free.
  3. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water from Canada writes: At some point in time the Conservatives will have insulted and demonized enough people to the point where majority will be impossible. Is this a good strategy? I wonder if PM Harper will have second thoughts about his third party advertising beliefs after all these associations start jumping on him? He has already had a change of heart with fixed election dates. I wonder if PM Harper will begin to understand why well analysed policies where possible reprecusions are properly considered before implementing are better than his current trend of policies of party convienience?
  4. Wall Flower from Canada writes: Combativeness and the need to insult all of those who disagree with you is downright pathological with these Reformers.
  5. Fake Name from Canada writes: " Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes:
    Adam, I am normally inhibited from saying or implying that anybody is really stupid, but in Tony Clement's case, it does seem to be the best explanation more much of his behavior."

    I really can't think of any reason besides extreme stupidity that a politician would wish to pick a very public fight with doctors (among the most trusted occupations in the country) over ethics. A lobotomized pigeon ought to know better than to do something that foolish, particularly after Clement gave a green light to the favoured province of Quebec to go ahead with the same thing he's fighting against so bitterly in BC.
  6. Wall Flower from Canada writes: Before crucifying Clement on this one, do keep in mind that the PMO probably wrote his speech. I seriously doubt that the PMO would allow Clement to address the CMA on the Insite file all on his own.

    That being said, he may very well be that stupid.
  7. Canadian Woman from Canada writes: Attacking the morals & ethics of Canadian Health Professionals is a policy that will backfire on this arrogant and uninformed groups of ideologues called the CPC. Thier disinformation campaigns are straight out of "1984" - or Bush's Neo-Con strategies. Facts seems to hold no influence to them. Whether its about the environment, Afghanistan, InSite, or child-care or any number of other issues, they are continuously disrespectful of the electorate. They continue to insult and alienate more and more groups in the population - hoping the disenfranchised don't count anyway. This time they've assaulted a very large group of the franchised. Who is their advisor and what planet is he from? Not the Canada of ordinary Canadians, that's for sure!
  8. Stan L from Canada writes: The list is getting long here women, doctor's artists, the film and television community, Ontario, lawyer's........attacking for short term gain is proving to be a long term pain for Harper, he needs to remember that the electorate has very long memories when they have been slammed.....I shouldn't be so anxious to go to the polls as he seems to be.
  9. Just Visiting from Ottawa, Canada writes: It's hard to know where the enemies list will stop. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who chose to risk insulting a quarter of humanity by declining the invitation of their government to attend the opening Olympic ceremonies due to an alleged scheduling conflict. He is obviously highly-skilled in making enemies.

    - JV
  10. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: Meanwhile, the Ottawa Citizen reports today that, while in Quebec yesterday, " Justice Minister Rob Nicholson appeared to be on a collision course with members of the legal establishment yesterday as he tried to promote the Conservative government's aggressive law-and-order agenda.

    Attending a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, Mr. Nicholson was challenged for failing to focus on dwindling legal aid, refusing to protest death sentences imposed on Canadians abroad and axing legal programs -- including one that helped fund groups fighting for equality rights."
  11. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: So much for Clement's chances at ever becoming a PM ...
  12. Stan L from Canada writes: Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: So much for Clement's chances at ever becoming a PM ...

    He only got his job by 28 votes...he'll be lucky to win his riding in the next election muc leass the country.....LOL
  13. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: To Wall Flower : Yes, Clement followed PMO orders and thus Harper ensures he again has no competition for the Con leadership. That is why he keeps the same set of incompetent MPs as Ministers...
  14. Paul H from Canada writes: Whatever was Mr. Clement thinking? Is he crazy? Pointing out the obvious, how evil and stupid. Doctors supporting Insite unethical. It doesn't heal anyone, it jsut enables them.
  15. Michael B from Canada writes: Ruth Walker, I loved everything you said except for the part about truthiness. Wikipedia (not always the best source, but in this case it works well) defines truthiness as a word used "to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or 'from the gut' without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts." Wouldn't it therefore be exactly what the CPC gives the public?

    Other than that, as I said, loved your post.

    A thought to contribute to our collective attempt at figuring out just what the heck the conservatives are thinking in alienating yet another respected institution. Maybe, just maybe, their much-celebrated strategic thinking goes out the window when they get angry enough at not getting their way. This would go a long way to explaining many of their biggest mis-steps (CNSC and now the CMA being major examples).
  16. Paul H from Canada writes: Mr. Nicholson...whatever are you doing annoying lawyers! Those paragons of virtue have nothing but the best interests of all Canadians in their hearts. Well, the ones that can afford to pay them at least.
  17. Michael B from Canada writes: Paul H, you're obviously a pea-brained little follower who will slander whatever target your bully-leaders choose, and repeat whatever slogans you've latched onto.

    If you had displayed even the slightest potential for intellectual thought in either of your posts, I might (not likely, but maybe) have attempted to reason with you.

    But you didn't. So I won't.
  18. Fake Name from Canada writes: " Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: To Wall Flower : Yes, Clement followed PMO orders and thus Harper ensures he again has no competition for the Con leadership. That is why he keeps the same set of incompetent MPs as Ministers..."

    I don't think Clement is really that big of an incompetent on his own (he did handle the SARS scare in ontario quite professionally). I agree with the above suggestion that those remarks were scripted by the PMO ... and I wouldn't be shocked if the goal behind it was to deliberately undermine Clement for having to say them. I'm pretty sure that was why Jim Prentice got stuck with pushing the highly unpopular copyright reform after speculation was floated that he'd have a better chance of leading the tories to a majority than harper himself would. It seems to be an emerging pattern that any minister who isn't incompetent is quickly ordered to alienate the public, lest they become more popular than the leader, and therefore a threat to him.
  19. Boyd of the North from North of 60o, Canada writes: Insite, crime, drugs & the Liberals... Harper et al. are trying to create a wedge issue.

    Clearly it will appeal to their core base, but for the rest of Canadians? I really don't think this is the ballot issue or one in which the Liberals will fall.

    Maybe I am missing something, but with the timing of the election rhetoric from all sides, the Harper government appears to think this will win them votes.

    And don't forget that Clement's speech targeted nurses, too, in its allegations of unethical conduct. Not a vote winner I would say.

    ciao
  20. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Why does Harper deliberately set out to alienate professionals? Because he is jealous. Stephen Harper is a theocrat. A very bad one, really, since he pays a psychic astrologer to advise him, much like superstitious kings and emperors of old. Stephen Harper cannot stand to believe that there is any one smarter than him. Smart people see him for what he is and mostly ignore him, or worse show him the error of his thinking. This is unacceptable to sociopathic Harper and he uses his only weapon against intelligence: attack.

    Pathetic really.

    Stephen Harper would like to see himself as a caliph, and all Canadians as servants to his greatness. He cannot bear the idea of people having free will. Stephen Harper would take Canada back to leeches and bloodletting for medical care. He just finished sacrificing Clement on his alter to bolster his own ego and ensure there is no challenge to his greatness. Harper's mindset is Dark Ages. I don't think he can help himself. Sociopaths do not have the control over themselves they think they do. In his heart of hearts, Stephen Harper hates people.
  21. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Could it be that the Cons recognize that they're going down, so now they're going for broke, hoping that there are enough hate-filled Canadians out there, that if they just touch one 'right' note with each of them, that this will save their government?

    I think those who point out that Harper throws stink-bombs at anyone in his Cabinet who stands a chance of replacing him are right, but combined with that would be Clement's own motivation. I mean, what does Clement really have to lose - his electoral margin was razor-thin already, so why not throw it all in and see if there are enough jealous, doctor-hater types out there to fill the void?

    The Cons are now clearly acting out of desperation. I remain convinced that the majority of Canadians are not motivated by hate and jealousy and will not join them in their desire to retain power at any cost.
  22. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Dion will play to people's intelligence, they're sense of ambition and noble-spiritedness. He will appeal to our sense of public duty and to a trust in ourselves and in each other, thinking that this is what defines us as citizens.

    Harper will play to people's basest fears, hates and prejudices. He assumes we're children and treats us like pieces on a chess board. He will reinforce mutual mistrust and appeal to our sense of jealous entitlement, thinking that this is what defines us as citizens.

    The election will come down to who, in the end, is right about us.
  23. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Wow, Jim Q - that is EXACTLY it.

    Now, what kind of people are we? I'm firmly convinced that we're not with the sociopaths (you sure got that one right, Mrs. Whiggins).
  24. Michael Sharp from Victorious, Canada writes:

    The ethics is this.

    "Do no harm."

    Encouraging IV drug use is harmful.

    Therefore the CMA, if it is supporting Insite, is in violation of it's primary tenet, "Do no harm'.

    Therefore, ipso facto, unethical.

    Not ideological, not theocratic, not partisan.

    Unethical for MDs to be promoting harm.

    It is not Clements that is thick.

    It is his opponents.
  25. Michael B from Canada writes: Ominous, and spot-on, Jim Q. You gave me the shivers.
  26. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Michael Sharp,

    You know better.

    INSITE has a vigorous and successful program of promoting rehab and counseling for users. As we've discussed before on different boards, Clement's office released figures that show increased recourse to treatment for addiction as well as for social ills.

    Clement knows very well that it is not a question of objective, it is a question of method.

    His attempt to recast the debate between experts, on one side (the local police, the local social workers and the medical profession) and a political agenda on the other, and turn it into a fight between people who want to help and people who wish to harm is at once uninsightful and insulting to the intelligence of every Canadian.

    Nobody believes that 80% of the medical profession wishes to perpetuate addiction.

    Even Clement. But then, we already know that he doesn't get to speak the truth if it conflicts with policy.
  27. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Perhaps Harper has decided to replace the medical profession with a more ethical practice:

    Faith Healing.

    If only the addicts prayed more often, they would be cured of all wickedness.

    Funny, though. It didn't seem to work for Vic Towes.

    Ah, well Vic, Big Man upstairs is busy. Better luck next time!
  28. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ah, Dr. Sharp - do provide us with your enlightened understanding of the Hypocratic oath - where did you say you went to med school again?

    After that, I'd also appreciate your expert opinion on nuclear safety, and if you still have some time left over this afternoon (you having 3 hours more left in your day than most of the rest of us), the proper role of the Senate in a constitutional monarchy, perhaps with a comparative analysis of Canada v. the UK.
  29. S Foley from Canada writes: The problem with this blog post is that it assumes all doctors favour Insite. Doctors are like any other group of voters. The Tories have not insulted all doctors.
    As far as artists go, they have not insulted all artists either. Just the ones that use the programs that were cut. Meanwhile arts and culture funding has increased 19%. So all other artists are happy. Not that buying votes is supposed to work.
  30. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: S Foley from Canada writes: The problem with this blog post is that it assumes all doctors favour Insite. Doctors are like any other group of voters. The Tories have not insulted all doctors.
    As far as artists go, they have not insulted all artists either. Just the ones that use the programs that were cut. Meanwhile arts and culture funding has increased 19%. So all other artists are happy. Not that buying votes is supposed to work.

    ************************************

    Sorry, S Foley, 80% of MDs in Canada favour insite, a crushing majority. Many, like Skeptical MD, oppose on ethical, rather than medical grounds.

    The increase in "arts" funding is a tricky claim. Depends on what you mean by "arts."

    If you cut the military by 5 % in manpower, removed 4% of their equipment and created 5 new bases to be shared by Canadian and allied armies at great expense, you could not really claim to have made our military materially stronger.

    The increase is aimed at buildings, not creative endeavour. Its unsustainable as a way of funding CANADIAN arts PRODUCTION, but only helps general purchase of all, including and especially
    ,foreign artists.

    This is election funding, aimed more at buying votes, not helping the cultural sector.
  31. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: "This is election funding, aimed more at buying votes, not helping the cultural sector."

    Funny, Cons don't seem to be able to tell the difference between governing and campaigning.
  32. North Star from Canada writes: Clement's speeches are written by the PMO and has has already lost the 28 seats that won him the riding in the last election.
  33. siren call from Canada writes: Paul H from Canada writes: Mr. Nicholson...whatever are you doing annoying lawyers! Those paragons of virtue have nothing but the best interests of all Canadians in their hearts. Well, the ones that can afford to pay them at least.
    ..................................

    Funny, Harper seems to like lawyers just fine when he's using them to sue:

    Elections Canada
    members of his own party regarding deals Harper has reneged upon
    the BC court who found in favour of Insite
    the opposition party for daring to oppose him
    etc.
  34. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: One would think that in a modern, developed society, respect would be paid to those who achieve higher levels of education, but the CPC seems to be heading in the opposite direction. The ultimate insult seems to be the word "professional". One CPC-supporter, after professing to believe in education, derided "professional educators". The CPC: party of the madding and muddled crowd.
  35. Vern McPherson from writes:
    Did we leave Ontario and Nfld off the list of items harper attacks ??

    'We don't need Newfoundland to win"

    "Ontario is the last place to invest"

    Apparently he likes car dealers and trainmen. delmaestro and flakerty and Mr. Charmichael come to mind.

    Of course how often do you really really want to go to a car dealer ?? Or take a ride on a train that doesn't exist and won't this decade or the next one ???
  36. Vern McPherson from writes:
    Michael you tinking ornament, Ryan Sparrow called.

    Your slice of genuine moon green cheese is on FedEx for Friday's delivery ......
  37. Murray Richardson from Canada writes: The spectacle of Tony Clement questioning anyone's ethics is particularly galling. This is the same Tony Clement who, in 1985 while a student in the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto, loudly advocated on behalf of the then apartheid government of South Africa. Such a creature has no place questioning the ethics of anybody. That such a creature holds public office in Canada is shameful. Tony Clement represents the vilest human instincts; the fact that he has been elected to public office several times in this country should be cause for Canadians to feel ashamed of themselves.
  38. S Foley from Canada writes: Jim Q, I hate to day it (actually that's not true), but somehow you have it all backwards. The liberals are the party that rewards laziness, that rewards dependency, that punishes achievement, and that rewards and promotes drug use. It is the liberal party that wants a society that is dictated and controlled by elitists, people who seek power and control and wish to promote hardship and poverty amongst citizens. It is the liberals that are anti-freedom and anti-family.

    Somehow you seem to have concluded that injecting hard drugs is something we want to encourage.

    It is the Conservatives that are the party that symbolizes hard work, caring for one another, families that are strong, and a society that is prosperous for everyone. Liberals wish for a society that is prosperous for special interest groups or a few elite insiders. Liberals want a society where people are judged by who they know, their ethnic background, or their ability to be heard.

    Just wanted to set the record straight for ya.
  39. siren call from Canada writes: S Foley -- man, I'd hate to "day" simply stupid things like that too.

    Is that a dig at Stockwell, btw? After all he too "days" stupid things all the time.
  40. Michael Sharp from Victorious, Canada writes: Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Michael Sharp, You know better. INSITE has a vigorous and successful program of promoting rehab and counseling for users. As we've discussed before on different boards, Clement's office released figures that show increased recourse to treatment for addiction as well as for social ills. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simply not true. Insite's OWN documents do not support a "vigorous and successful" program. Their data is fuzzy. Consider this. In order for Insite to be successful in reducing blood-borne diseases, the addict has to use Insite 100% of the time. Use dirty needles just once outside of Insite and you run the risk of an 85% chance of HepC, 55% chance of HIV. Insite admits, in it's own documents that they DO NOT KNOW if any given addict is using Insite 100% of the time. Addicts being poor historians. Rehab, detox are all available oustide of Insite. Does enabling addicts to use illegal drugs in order to hopefully get them to access rehab or detox they might not have otherwise sought out outweigh the slippery slope of societal approval of illegal IV drug use? I don't believe it does. Hence, my opposition.
  41. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Michael Sharp:-- You are in opposition because this offends your smug sense of order, not to mention your partisan inclinations. You well know, I hope, that rehab and detox may be available, but they are not READILY available. In simple language, Michael, there is a waiting list for same. If you really and fervently believe that everybody who dabbles in drugs should be in rehab/detox, I trust that you are telling Mssrs Clement and Harper so, such that they can provide rehab/detox facilities instead of the promised incarceration. If you believe that absolutely every addict can be rehabilitated, you will particularly press that point. Otherwise, Michael, you are just prattling into the wind, if you get my meaning.
  42. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Jim Q, when you describe the government's actions, it sounds a lot like a step on the march towards fascism.
  43. siren call from Canada writes: Durward Saar -- according to the CMA, 79% of their members support Insite. That would usually be considered a vast majority.

    As for your claimed secrecy and lack of peer review -- perhaps you could explain that?
  44. spicydoc--That'll do, spicydoc, that'll do... from Canada writes:
    You guys are idiots.

    The InSite stuff is a deliberate ploy by the CPC and CMA to create an appearance of loggerheads between the groups. The vast majority of physicians are indifferent to InSite.

    Notivce, however, what happens when the CMA start to talk about tw0-tier medicine again.

    Clement, the former foe of the CMA, will be seen as conciliatory--

    "Although the President of the CMA and myself have sharply different opinions on some subjects, in others we will try to work together for the best of all Canadians.

    Haven't you guys seen this kind of staged dynamic before?? Why do you lap it up?? Are you new??
  45. ronin x from an undisclosed location, Canada writes: Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: "Could it be that the Cons recognize that they're going down, so now they're going for broke, hoping that there are enough hate-filled Canadians out there, that if they just touch one 'right' note with each of them, that this will save their government? I think those who point out that Harper throws stink-bombs at anyone in his Cabinet who stands a chance of replacing him are right, but combined with that would be Clement's own motivation. I mean, what does Clement really have to lose - his electoral margin was razor-thin already, so why not throw it all in and see if there are enough jealous, doctor-hater types out there to fill the void? The Cons are now clearly acting out of desperation. I remain convinced that the majority of Canadians are not motivated by hate and jealousy and will not join them in their desire to retain power at any cost. " Posted 19/08/08 at 4:08 PM EDT The majority of voters aren't. And desperate the CONs are. But it is the modus operandi of neocons; get in, even with the slimmest of margins, knowing you will never have the people on your side, so mess up every government institution as much as you can in the hopes you can blame it on the government that replaces you over and over until you can get back in power to do it again. All the while lying to the faces of their 'base', knowing they will gladly say 2 2=5. Time after time, since Thatcher/Reagan/Mulroney, conservative governments have been the biggest spenders, biggest tax raisers, ran the biggest deficits and have been mired in scandal, failure and corruption. BritRail nationalization, coal miner strikes, Falklands war, firing the air traffic controllers, Iran Contra, tripling the US debt, the GST, Airbus/Schreiber, deficit budgets, election fraud. And dozens of examples ever since.
  46. Fake Name from Canada writes: " diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: One would think that in a modern, developed society, respect would be paid to those who achieve higher levels of education, but the CPC seems to be heading in the opposite direction. The ultimate insult seems to be the word "professional"."

    The professions are a useless, namby-pamby distraction from the proper role of canadians: manual labour in the resource extraction sector. Anyone with a job other than that is holding back canada's true purpose, and if they've also got a professional degree, chances are they're a homosexual liberal.

    ... Caricaturing the opposing mindset seems to be a favourite among some tories such as 'typical toronto voter', but I don't think I'll do that again. It's not really that humourous, actually.
  47. Patrick Bramwell from Calgary, Canada writes: Said "Mrs Whiggins": "since he [Mr Harper] pays a psychic astrologer to advise him"

    Proof? or do you belong to the "if I say it's true, it is" school of thought?
  48. North Star from Canada writes: Is there any group left that the Harper government hasn't attacked and vilified? Why yes!: the taser-toting police who kill unarmed civilians with impunity.
  49. Haiden MitHand El from Canada writes: Patrick Bramwell from Calgary, Canada writes: Said "Mrs Whiggins": "since he [Mr Harper] pays a psychic astrologer to advise him"
    Proof? or do you belong to the "if I say it's true, it is" school of thought?

    PB -- his stylist (i.e dresser) is also a professional psychic.
  50. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: North Star from Canada writes: Is there any group left that the Harper government hasn't attacked and vilified? Why yes!: the taser-toting police who kill unarmed civilians with impunity.
    ------------------
    May I suggest that if you are in a bad situation and need assistance that you do not call the police. Maybe you can call one of your protest buddies.

    "the taser-toting police who kill unarmed civilians with impunity"....my god, some people are so lost and misled.
  51. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: S Foley:

    What?

    My post:
    "INSITE has a vigorous and successful program of promoting rehab and counseling for users. As we've discussed before on different boards, Clement's office released figures that show increased recourse to treatment for addiction as well as for social ills."

    "Nobody believes that 80% of the medical profession wishes to perpetuate addiction."

    Your post: "Somehow you seem to have concluded that injecting hard drugs is something we want to encourage."

    How are you drawing this conclusion about my motivation?

    Probably the same way you deduced that G Kennedy and Mike Savage are "elietists" that "wish to promote proverty"

    At this point, dude, you're just making stuff up for the sake of rhetoric. It works better if its plausible and not just goofy insinuations of an evil conspiracy.

    I suppose Clement taught you how to do research and analysis. I think your hat needs for tinfoil.
  52. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: M Sharp,

    Again, your analysis of INSITE's results ignores the increased rates of recourse to addiction treatment.

    You seem to be avoiding that particular issue.
  53. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: diane marie, further to your, "One would think that in a modern, developed society, respect would be paid to those who achieve higher levels of education, but the CPC seems to be heading in the opposite direction. The ultimate insult seems to be the word "professional". One CPC-supporter, after professing to believe in education, derided "professional educators". The CPC: party of the madding and muddled crowd." - my brainwashed neoCon-approving mother is focused on 'experts' as the dirty word, usually prefaced by 'so-called'. Now, there is certainly some truth in that no expert should be taken at face-value and that just about anybody (Clement being the prime example, Lunn being a nuclear safety expert, Baird an environment expert, Harper a constitutional expert - my, these Cons are SIMPLY amazing - and I DO mean SIMPLY) can claim to be expert in anything, provided the gullible are prepared not to question them. And that grain of truth, I think, is where they managed to grab my mother, and then give it that Con twist, such that ALL experts are now to be suspect, indeed discredited. I think I mentioned this on another thread, but when Mum was pontificating on how useless experts are, I asked her whyever it was that she insisted that her children go onto higher education, successfully encouraged, even, to obtain some modicum of expertise on their own (we 3 girls have 4 graduate degrees between us, and we're using them). Mum doth protest a lot (a bad habit I admit to sharing with her), but she often ultimately comes back round to reason - I'm not sure many other Cons will though - witness 30% and pretty much holding in the polls, despite behaviour bordering on criminal.
  54. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Yesterday, the left was just super-duper with the CMA's ethics.

    Today, not so much.

    I laugh and laugh and laugh.
  55. vid ingelevics from Canada writes: It's fascinating to watch the Olympics (very well presented on our public broadcaster, by the way, CBC haters) and see so many displays of truly gracious behavior as competing athletes support and congratulate one another after great performances.

    There is a sense of decency and common humanity there that is in such sharp contrast to the relentless divisiveness that we are witnessing emanating from the highest office in our own land.
  56. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Michele K:-- Interesting. Familial dinner table conversations must often be somewhat fraught. My favourite example of the conservative use of "so-called" is that levelled at Hans Blix, as in, "so-called weapons inspector". As it turned out, he was considerably more expert in weapons-inspecting than "so-called" would have suggested. My guess is that your mama was more interested in the social advancement/credential aspects of your respective educations than with the critical thinking skills delivered by same, which she may now view as a troublesome by-product.
  57. vid ingelevics from Canada writes: diane marie: don't forget that Stephen Harper was also refering to climate change as "so-called" as recently as December 2006, I believe.
  58. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: vid ingelevics from Canada writes: diane marie: don't forget that Stephen Harper was also refering to climate change as "so-called" as recently as December 2006, I believe.

    *****************

    He approaches it the same way he approaches "so called" poverty, the "so called" need for public health care and "so called" rights to safe food and water for all Canadians.

    I can't wait to see his "so called" solutions to Canada's "so called" needs.
  59. Fake Name from Canada writes: "Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:
    Yesterday, the left was just super-duper with the CMA's ethics. Today, not so much."

    What I've seen is the left disagreeing with his judgment / policy perspective. I definitely haven't noticed any leftie politicians stating that because they disagree, that makes Oulette a bad person who lacks professional ethics.
  60. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria,

    Uuummmmm, nice try. But nobody from the left is alleging that the CMA wants people to die. They're simply disagreeing with his analysis on accessibility.

    Besides, there are politicians and voters in the Liberal camp who are open to elements of private health delivery. Its especially inoffensive that the new Pres is not calling for open market, but for a rebalancing of public health: More public basics (pharmacare, GPs etc.) with more private space for specialty, exotic treatments that are high-cost, low-public-benefit. Note, too, that his model includes private delivery in a publicly funded system (renting his equipment to the public system within a regulated cost framework).

    Back to the drawing board, Mike, you're non-analysis doesn't stick.
  61. true conservative from Canada writes: Fake Name - Clement is incompetent - the only way that he gained power in the ON PC was daddy's pocketbook and buzz was that Tory was going to give him the boot (hence his escape to the CPC). As for SARS - it was mostly the efforts of the CMA that handled that crisis. Clement just stayed out of the way.

    This idiocy goes back to Clement's days in the Harris govt. The one union that Harris failed to intimidate was the doctors - when he tried, they squished Clement like a bug. I'm thinking that Milhouse is holding a grudge.
  62. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Wall Flower from Canada writes: Combativeness and the need to insult all of those who disagree with you is downright pathological with these Reformers.

    That pretty much explains it.

    The bitter, petty, partisan Harper's only hope for progress was to capitalize in Quebec and woo voters in Ontario.

    The Quebec plan has fallen flat, even with millions in vote-buying schemes.

    And the Cons inexplicably went out of their way to insult, smear, and alienate Ontarians when they needed support and leadership.

    The Cons are basically trying to scattergun the electorate now, alternately wooing and repelling various groups, while resonating with no one but their hardcore base in Alberta, and the BC interior.

    So another minority on tap, good enough to purge Harpercrite and Dion, wish them well, and get on with finding real leadership for Canada.
  63. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victorious, Canada writes:
    The ethics is this.
    "Do no harm."
    Encouraging IV drug use is harmful.
    Therefore the CMA, if it is supporting Insite, is in violation of it's primary tenet, "Do no harm'.
    ...
    The inference is misleading because important premises are missing, e.g. try adding the premise,

    Promoting policies that needlessly cause Insite customers serious physical harm, is even worse.
    Therefore the CMA, if it is supporting Insite, is seeking outcomes that do the least harm for people who have fallen into an addiction trap.

    BTW the Hippocratic Corpus actually says,
    "to help, or at least to do no harm"

    It seems to emphasize that in real life, we follow gradients. Life is seldom black and white, unless you happen to be morally superior.
  64. F H from Canada writes: "Paul H from Canada writes: Whatever was Mr. Clement thinking?"

    He wasn't.
  65. F H from Canada writes: ""The ethics is this."Do no harm."Encouraging IV drug use is harmful"

    But they're not encouraging it. In fact, there are people at InSite who encourage all addicts to go in for treatment in order to beat their addictions and also who ensure there are no fatal overdoses.

    Closing InSite or other places like it won't stop addicts from being addicts. They'll just continue to shoot up, but without InSite they'd be doing do with shared needles in filthy locales with no medical staff nearby to help in case of an overdose.

    Thus, they are being realistic in realizing drug use will continue whether they exist or not, so are making it as harmless as possible under the circumstances.
  66. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: If INSITE closes, this notice should go up: "Hey everyone, we're closed. Everybody's meeting now in Ottawa. Head on down to the school the Harper kids go to. We'll be shooting up in the school yard. Cheers!"

    Then we'd see how quickly they'd find somewhere else for them to shoot up again.

    This is one case where NIMBY is good policy. Seriously, keep INSITE open, because if there's one thing we can agree on when it comes to addicts, its NIMBY.
  67. Kyle Gray from United States writes: Unfortunately, most people who have visited a doctor in a clinic or hospital, would probably agree with Mr. Clement. My mother who was recently in a car accident, went to see a doctor in a walk in clinic, where the doctor listened to her story and prescribed medication. The doctor failed to check her respitory breathing, even though she pointed out her difficulty breathing. He did not examine her one bit, how could anyone say that this is ethical? This tends to be a recurring theme in most doctors offices. Doctors make money on medical procedures performed and number of patients they see, there is no measure of success. There are plenty of doctors out there who value the service they deliver and care more about the patient than the money. Their actions and behaviours unfortunately are not rewarded in our public system. These doctors do a wonderful job, but we do have many who are only doctors because the money is good, and have no feelings for the patients or their families. Maybe the good doctors could help point out which doctors are suspect, instead of protecting them behind their union. The excuse that Canada is in need of doctors, we do not need doctors who do not follow or believe their Hypocratic Oath they swore to uphold. In a Private system funded with public money Doctors like this would be turfed as it is bad for business. Public relations and service is what drives good medical facilities and practices, the public system shuns this as everyone is equal.
  68. david mackenzie from edmonton, Canada writes: Clement is right. Close INSITE, get addicts back on the street where they belong so they can toss used needles in schoolyards to give kiddies something to play with at recess. Ruth Walker, however, is correct. Addicts are self medicating. Health care professionals supervise. Obvious intent is harm reduction both for junkies and society. Completely ethical. We need one stepfurther. Instead of spilling blood, treasure in futility in Afghanistan, buy up the opium crop thus gaining leverage with the Taliban ("Let girls go to school and we'll up the price." Ditto Columbia, FARC, cocaine, although obvious dangers, coca remains an effective curative for altitude sickness). Then we could supply immoral, degenerate, sub-human needle pushers with "free" goof in exchange for keeping off the street in "work for drugs" program. No money for organized crime. Surplus could be sent to Africa where there is too much pain and not enough painkiller. Heroin is the most effective and oldest palliative (for agony) known to humanity (read Richard Rudgely's "Essential Substances.") albeit addictive and lethal in overdose, however causes no known organ damage even after prolonged use. Partaking of pharmacopia is an inalienable human right all too easily alienated. Jail too expensive for taxpayers although forced labour concentration camps show promise. Killing all addicts requires battalions of SS and Gestapo and might be unpalatable to some Canadians if not unconstitutional notwithstanding the notwithstanding clause. Proscription of certain drugs in our booze addled and caffeine fuelled society (tobacco waning due to public education and legal ostracization of its aficionados) is based primarily on religious intolerance, racial prejudice and cultural bias (ie: ideological) If the issue is truly addiction then coffee and tobacco would be illegal. If the issue is harm, then alcohol production, distribution and consumption would merit the death penalty.
  69. david mackenzie from edmonton, Canada writes: P.S. We are hypocrytes not Hippocratists.
  70. Marnie Tunay from Edmonton, Canada writes: Yeah, so much for Harper's pre-election promises to increase government accountability and transparency, eh? But what's to be done? Who's got the credibility to take his job away from him?
    Not Dion, obviously.
    Marnie Tunay
    http://fakirscanada.googlepages.com/
  71. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Marnie Tunay - your gratuitous slam at Dion (and gawd knows why you think it's even related to THIS discussion) borders on libel - back up you smear, else take it back.
  72. von clausewitz from edmonton, Canada writes: The Dionistas would be hard pressed to be worse than then Herperites.
  73. Tim Bryson from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes: This sort of bunker mentaility is very similar to that displayed by the shrink-wrapped White House. Clement's tone to the doctors reminds one of the tone the White House and its loyalists displayed towards those who opposed the Iraq War...lots of yelling and screaming and questioning of their morality, but not much substance.
  74. Jim Q from Halifax, Canada writes: david mackenzie from edmonton,

    While an interesting idea, I think you'll find the problem with "work for drugs" is that it is not competitive in an addict's personal economy.

    They'd still start on drugs from outside the program. Their initial "comfort contacts" are the street dealers, who can play to their laziness and can offer drugs without condition.

    As for buying up the opium crop....easier said than done. The grow sites are controlled by the Taliban, who view the crop as a means to an end. They will not sell to us they way we'd like.

    Work for drugs demands complete isolation. Otherwise, you're just giving junkies more drugs and further fueling the addiction.

    INSITE is probably the furthest we could go with harm-reduction/ drugs-to-counseling programs.
  75. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: By allowing Canadians to access private care here rather than having to cross the border, there's a reasonable chance of saving at least a few percentage points on healthcare costs, which is billions here. Also, it could significantly reduce waitlists and provide for better treatment research by comparing non-profit with for-profit healthcare decision-making and care. To wipe out waitlists, government would have to enact written informed consents, used by most North American jurisdicitons, to end attention-seeking and income-inspired surgeries. Finally, limiting hospitals to billing only for the services they provide, such as nursing home rates for nursing home care, would also go a long way to rationalizing healthcare and making it accessible. You'd think the Conservatives would be dancing. Perhaps they fear that some Canadians would be uneasy. However, education and polling could change outmoded thinking very quickly.
  76. Madge from the Salon from Canada writes: Add salon workers to the list.

    "We're gonna wash that CRAP right out of our hair!" salutations and a nod to Ms. Clairol.
  77. Rod Smelser from Maple Ridge, BC, Canada writes: Tony Clement is a dangerous, decietful, and irresponsible ideologue. In his univerrsity years he distinguished himself on campus as a proponent of the South African Apartheid regime. He has not become more moderate as he has aged. The voters in Clement's Parry Sound-Muskoka district owe it to all Canadians to do whatever it takes to make absolutely certain that Clement is not re-elected. That burden falls with particular weight on the shoulders of Conservatives who live in that district. If they are unable to engineer Clement's defeat at a nomination meeting, then they have only two honourable and decent choices left. They must either vote against their own party, or at a bare minimum, stay home on election day. Where a man as dangerous as Clement is concerned their can be no margin for error or any slack granted to those who just aren't up to seeing their duty and carrying it out, however unpleasant it may be for them personally. I repeat. Tony Clement must be defeated at any and all costs. Canada cannot afford the risk of allowing this man to remain in public life.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.