CPC=Chit-head Partee of Canaduh

Whoa! I was reading further into that HofC Foreign Affairs Committee meeting evidence this morning. I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Conservative Party is full of contemptible shit-heads.

Just check it out:

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): We will share our time.

I want to respond to the concluding remarks Minister Day made, because I was the first member of Parliament to raise the issue of detainee transfers in the House of Commons, the very first day Parliament sat last year. I want to clearly put out that no one in my party or, in my estimation, in any opposition party made any kind of aspersion or comment about Canadian Forces personnel on this issue. What we were questioning was your government's commitment to human rights. And we were questioning the inadequacy of the agreement that was signed on detainee transfers. Never once were we questioning the role of the Canadian Forces. I just want that on the record.

During the whole discussion and the questions—I'm responding to what you said, Minister—in relation to how this whole issue has been handled, we've had instances when we've been informed by ministers in the House--misinformed by ministers in the House--about the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross. We've been misinformed about the role of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the resources they have to do their job. Clearly, our questions at all times were on the role of the government and on the government's handling of human rights.

We've had a board of inquiry into detainees, and there's been a report from them saying that detainees whom Canadians have taken have gone missing; they can't find them. I want to ask Minister O'Connor this: Of the detainees Canadians have taken in Afghanistan, do you know where they all are now? Can you tell us the status of the detainees taken by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan? (Emphasis added.)

For some reason, Stockwell Day was chosen by the Chair to answer:

Hon. Stockwell Day: Thank you, Chairman.

I don't know that it was so much a question to me as a commentary. I appreciate the commentary. It's exactly the type of response I've been trying to elicit for months from opposition members instead of having them, in their questioning, casting a negative pall over the actions of our soldiers. In fact, we have heard today again from the Liberal member, Mr. Coderre, that there's some kind of game going on—with sort of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge—with our soldiers and theirs. So that type of veiled accusation continues.

We have no difficulty in any way, shape, or form being questioned about government actions. I'm talking about the actions of soldiers who have been noted, even by Afghan forces and those who've been apprehended by Canadians, in their reflections on the actions of our soldiers, to have been nothing but exemplary.

It has been unfortunate. I said that I'm not saying it is intentional, but it has been unfortunate that our soldiers feel an accusatory tone towards their actions. There's nothing wrong with questioning government actions, but our soldiers have been honourable in this whole process.

Did you catch the answer there? No? That's because there was no answer. But Stockwell Day has long been known to be a moron. Let's move on:

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Yes, to my knowledge, our forces have recorded every detainee they've taken since the beginning of the Afghan mission. We also have medical records for them, and so on. But the Canadian Forces do not have any responsibility, as such, to monitor what happens to detainees in the Afghan system.

Now, this O'Connor fellow, he's a lot slicker. He's almost able to make it look like he's answering the question. Of course, anyone with half a brain can tell that he isn't answering the question. No, he doesn't know what happens to prisoners. He doesn't know where they are.

"Who gives a fuck if some Islamo-fascist ragheads get summarily executed while we liberate their shit-hole of a country?"

So goes the thought processes of your typical right-wing asshat who will forever wonder why Western missions of "benevolence" always seem to be so vulnerable to failure.

But here comes Peter MacKay, who eventually says that he knows where the prisonsers are:

Hon. Peter MacKay: Perhaps I can pick up on that point, Mr. Chair and colleagues. That is exactly what this enhanced arrangement is very much aimed at achieving. Clearly this arrangement that was placed in effect a few months ago is still morphing into an effective system of monitoring.

There were shortcomings in the previous arrangement that we know were highlighted by some of these complaints by detainees. What we have now is a greater system of reporting. I would suggest we have a higher standard when it comes to the obligations placed upon the Afghans themselves. We have greater unfettered and private access available to Canadian officials, diplomats, and personnel from Corrections Canada. That also extends to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. It is also meant to enhance access from the International Commission of the Red Cross.

So this enhanced arrangement, Mr. Chair, as it has been referred to by many, including noted journalists and others who have closely followed this issue, is now the standard. In fact other countries are looking to this example as a way to improve their own monitoring.
...

Ms. Dawn Black: The question is, where are the detainees now? Do we know where they are? Monitoring, Mr. Minister, is supposed to be part of what's taking place here.
...

Hon. Peter MacKay: As I said, Mr. Chair, this is exactly what's happening. We now have a much greater ability to track the detainees to ensure the standards that are expected are being met. The Afghans themselves, of course, clearly understand the expectations when it comes to detainees who were turned over by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. They will not only ensure that we know about their whereabouts, but their treatment will conform with international standards—the standards we have clearly set out. Our ambassador in Afghanistan, Arif Lalani, now meets regularly with Afghan officials, including the head of the security, with whom he has met very recently, to continue to underscore our expectations.

So, at long last, Peter MacKay tells us that yes, he does know what happens to all our prisoners in the problematic Afghanistan penal system. Only they can't reveal any proof for this claim. Earlier, Gordon (Lobbyist) O'Connor barfed out the following embarrassing bit of drivel:

Hon. Gordon O'Connor: I can confirm, Mr. Chair, that for operational reasons we do not provide information on how many persons have been detained or transferred by the Canadian Forces, or any other details. The public release of information on the number of detainees held, transferred, or released by the Canadian Forces and any related details would be detrimental to our military operations. For instance, the enemy could exploit the information for propaganda purposes and towards other operational objectives. The enemy could use the information for planning, surveillance, and other operational purposes.

I must point out that operational security is a military decision, not a political one. This is a military decision. We are conducting military operations at this time. The military have declared this to be operational security.

R-i-i-i-g-h-t! Didn't Peter MacKay once promise not to hand over the Progressive Conservative Party to the far-right nutjobs in the C.R.A.P.? Now he expects us to trust him on the safety of prisoners he was caught-out lying about in the past? I believe the expression is "Fuck You Peter MacKay."

"The enemy could use the information for planning, surveillance, and other operational purposes."

Holy shit, I'm convinced. What sort of "planning" could the Taliban and/or resistance forces do with knowledge of how many prisoners Canada has taken, and how many of them are still alive?

"Hmmm. Omar, according to the documents that the decadent Westerners were forced to reveal by their homosexual and harlot democrats, they took four of our men prisoner last week."

"Well then Osama, we can PLAN to lose from three to five men in our next assault!"

"Excellent! With detailed PLANNING such as this, we're sure to win!! Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!"

"Indeed!!! OH-ho-ha-ha-ha!!!"

It turns out that "other operational purposes" is military code for "I'm not that smart. Please don't force me to come up with more creative bullshit, I beg of you."

Immediately following Dawn Black's question, Alexa McDonough attempts to get some thoughts from "Canada's Stale, Conservative, Minority Government" on the significance of the suspension of Malalai Joya's suspension from the Afghanistan Parliament for having disrespected it by comparing it unfavourably with a stable. (The sensitive, swooning Afghan MPs who were so offended by Malalai Joya's criticisms had themselves called for her to be raped and tossed bottles and other objects at her while she was speaking in their sacred Parliamentary halls.)

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that in your opening statements today, Ministers, you once again cited the security of women and children and the protection of human rights as the principal focus of Canada's efforts in Afghanistan. Yet, during the recent visit to Afghanistan by the Prime Minister, he remained dead silent—dumb as an oyster, as we would say in Atlantic Canada—while the leading human rights campaigner for Afghan women and children, an outspoken advocate for bringing warlords to trial for human rights abuses, was arbitrarily suspended from the Afghan Parliament. For what? For criticizing the ineffectiveness and corruption that is rampant in that body.

Why was the Prime Minister and your entire government absolutely silent on Malalai Joya's suspension? If the Canadian government doesn't support this proven champion of Afghan human rights, why would the people of Afghanistan believe that Canada's mission in their country will protect their human rights?

Recall that before Alexa's repeating of the question, "Canada's Stupid Government" had been completely occupied hemming and hawing trying to avoid Dawn Black's question.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, if I could, we wouldn't want the record to show that once again five ministers remained dumb as an oyster in the face of Malalai Joya's plight, so I wonder if I could ask for a response around the status of Malalai Joya and whether it is still the government's position that they have no comment on this grotesque, undemocratic, arbitrary suspension for having criticized the corruption and the ineffectiveness of parliament?

Hon. Peter MacKay: Some oysters have pearls, Mr. Chair. I'll allow my pearl to the left to respond to that question.

Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!


Hon. Josée Verner: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being given the opportunity to remind all of my colleagues of the degree of commitment of the Canadian government and my department to women and to girls.

Within our world of communications, news travels fast and we have perhaps forgotten what the Taliban regime meant for women. This is perhaps a good opportunity to remind everyone. This regime is certainly one of the most atrocious the planet has ever seen. Women were not allowed to work nor to walk alone in the street, and when they went out they had to be accompanied by a close family member, of the male sex. They were denied access to the public baths and to education, and this also applied to little girls.

I think we should remember the arbitrary executions that took place in public arenas, before tens of thousands of men and teenagers, for minor offences.

One story I was...


Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I twice asked a very specific question about Malalai Joya and the government's position. I've heard nothing but filibustering, with all kinds of vague references that this committee does not need to have a lecture on.

I'm asking if any of these five ministers cares enough or knows enough to speak about the status of Malalai Joya, or have you never even raised it to this date with the Afghan government?

And no, I won't stay home and stick to my knitting.


The Co-Chair (Mr. Rick Casson): I didn't hear that comment.

Unfortunately the time has expired for that round of questioning. We're moving over now to the government side, to Mr. Obhrai. To start off, you have 10 minutes.

And there you have it. "The government of Afghanistan isn't the Taliban. (They might be worse in some respects, but they're still NOT the Taliban. They're a different government.) And we're not as bad as Hitler or Stalin, and what more can you ask from democracy than that?"

Stupid fuckers.