Heritage Front redux

The last few days has seen some discussion about the now-defunct Heritage Front, its associates, and its character.

It started with the latest instalment in a series about Marc Lemire by the ARC Collective (the earlier installments are: part 1, part 2, and part 3). The smoking-gun, as Dawg has called it, is a transcript of a relay chat that took place in Sept. 2001 between James Scott Richardson (who had the handle WPCANADA, presumably for "White Power Canada") and Lemire (who has chosen the handle "FdaJEWS" for "F*** the Jews").

Freedominion, too, has chipped in. Connie dismisses this all out of hand (here):

but recycling the same old lies doesn't get you any closer to proving Lemire somehow wrested control of the Heritage Front from CSIS when he was barely out of his teens.

This is a little confused. CSIS control of Heritage Front? Apparently the reference is to the CSIS infiltration of Heritage Front by Grant Bristow. Bristow, however, was exposed and went into hiding in 1994, seven years before the exchange in question. But by then Lemire could hardly be described, as Connie puts it, as "barely out of his teens". According to this Lemire was born in 1975, which will have placed him in his mid-twenties in Sept. 2001 when he called himself "FdaJEWS".

Nor was this the end of Lemire's association with Heritage Front. In June, 2002, Heritage Front's magazine, Upfront (archived here), profiled the activities of its Hamilton chapter, which had distributed 6000 copies of an anti-immigrant pamphlet. The profile included the following picture of Lemire holding the pamphlet in front of Hamilton's Henderson hospital. (Just in case you can't make out that logo see the blow-up on the right -- yes, this is Heritage Front literature.)

Here we have what Connie wants to deny: a fully-adult Lemire presenting himself as the face of a post-Bristow Heritage Front.

Nor is it hard to find other examples of this from these years. In May 2001, for example, Marc Lemire wrote an open-letter to the German-Canadian Congress in support of Helmut Oberlander. His letter was also published at the Heritage Front website (archived here) as a "Letter from the Heritage Front". Again, a fully-adult Lemire presents himself as speaking for Heritage Front.

Was he the leader of the HF? That's less clear, though some within the movement clearly thought so. But regardless of that it is clear that he belonged to the HF and was involved in its leadership.

My guess?

My guess?

Fingerprints on the baggy.

(It's as good as any, isn't it?)

Rahim Jaffer Conservative error

As Big City has pointed out, Rahim Jaffer's webpage has been up and down a lot. The problem now, apparently, is removing that pesky Conservative logo. Next step? Take the whole thing down. Or maybe not (screen-shot as of 5 minutes ago):

On charting priestly child abuse

Apologies to for my slow blogging, but I've been travelling. Now that I'm back home from out east, I want to expand on a point that made in the comments at John Pacheco's place.

The point at discussion was the interpretation of a graph found in study of the scope of priestly abuse commissioned by the United States Conference of Bishops in 2002. The study itself was undertaken by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Here is the graph:

Pacheco's point is that the scandal is "is long past" and he is sharply critical of those who "drudge up decades-old garbage which has largely been dealt with".

The idea that these details are decades old should probably not go unchallenged. Below is the graph from chapter 5.2 of the same study as to when these allegations were made by year:

As you can see, the vast majority of the allegations themselves were made just a year or two before the study. Presumably these are adults coming forward to share details of the abuse that happened decades ago, as is in any case implied by this chart of the year of the start of abuse for the single year 2002, when there appears to be something of a spike:

And this one, which reports time between the incident and the report:

This last one especially should give pause for those who think that this problem is completely behind us. To judge from this, 10% of allegations of abuse are reported right away and another 10% within a decade of the abuse. Most allegations, however, wait until the victim decides to come forward in what seems to be their 30s and 40s and 50s.

This may mean that huge bump in the middle of the graph is largely a function of the age of the abusees (on average 12, according to this study) and the delay in reporting. The 12 year-olds being abused in 1982 (which seems to be the peak) are now 40. As subsequent cohorts mature, the shape of this graph will resolve. But we really won't know whether the number of 12-years abused this year is less than those abused twenty years ago for another few decades.

Happy Easter

(For the t/s)

Keeping those numbers in perspective

Lifesite News (and one of the usual suspects) want us to keep the numbers of allegations of priestly abuse in perspective:

In the last several weeks such a quantity of ink has been spilled in newspapers across the globe about the priestly sex abuse scandals, that a casual reader might be forgiven for thinking that Catholic priests are the worst and most common perpetrators of child sex abuse.

But according to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

100 times more abuse by teachers than priests? Worth remembering.

But keeping things in perspective may not in fact help their argument much. There are 6.8 million teachers in the US (see here), which is about 164 times the number of priests ( 41,406 according to wikipedia).

An under-appreciated point on the abuse of Roman Catholic priests

Michael Wolff makes an important point about the recent controversy about the Catholic Church and its handling of the recent scandals involving sexual and physical abuse committed by priests.

The issue in the Church’s almost decade-long sexual abuse scandal is less about priests and boys, and more substantially about its long, defining battle with secular authority.

That’s the message that comes through the clearest: The Church didn’t want to notify the police about the criminal activity of its priests and didn’t believe it had to. And, having enormous sway in US police departments—policing being, peculiarly, an Irish and, hence, Roman Catholic profession—and within governments in Europe, the Church was pretty much free to make that decision on its own.

As many have pointed out, the Church is not the only institution that has had to face this problem. There have been abusive Boy Scout leaders and public school teachers. But in such cases, accusations have been turned over to the police, and failure to report allegations is itself a serious enough offence that (say) a school principal would be dismissed for ignoring them. The Church seems, uniquely, to regard itself outside the law in these matters.

h/t Andrew Sullivan.

Jay Currie, Richard Warman's computers, and the Cools post

As many readers know, a nasty racist screed was made about Anne Cools in September 2003 on Marc Lemire's Freedomsite. During a hearing before the CHRT, Bernard Klatt argued that the author of that post was probably Richard Warman, who denied it under oath. The allegation that was subsequently repeated by a number of other bloggers whom Warman sued. The matter is now slowly working its way through the courts.

I have discussed the evidence extensively on this blog and came to the conclusion that:

1. there is no evidence that Warman is the author of the Cools post, 
2. Warman's computer could not be the source of the Cools post, 
3. Bernard Klatt's testimony before the CHRT was seriously deficient.

A recent news article discussing the case (here) was noticed by long-time blogger (and talented photographer) Jay Currie (here). Someone cited several of my postings on the subject, to which Jay responded (here):

I am aware of Buckets work, Harry, as you will see from the comments on those articles – however this was not “an investigation” nor were these “findings”. And, probably most to the point, virtually all of buckets work relies on the assumption that Lucy only had one computer. Now, he has entered a computer in evidence – though he won’t let the defence actually look at it – and it is a laptop computer. What are the chances that a super, duper, whooper secret internet hate buster like Lucy would only have one computer? And his wife? Perhaps she has a computer? And perhaps he has a computer from the CHRC or DOD. buckets is interesting but not at all depositive.

I am, of course, happy to learn that Jay finds me interesting. In saying that my work assumes that Warman had only one computer, however, he rather misses the point, since the one-computer thesis is not mine, but Klatt's.

If we ignore trivialities like the fact that Warman had a yahoo email and the Cools' poster had one from hotmail, Klatt's argument is twofold (see Klatt's affidavit, §§ 22-41):

1. that Warman's visits the site in October and November were made through the Rogers IP 66.185.84.204, the same IP as the Cools poster had used (see esp. §35)
2. that Warman's computer and computer of the Cools poster were configured identically and were therefore the same computer (see esp. § 36)

I have demonstrated that neither point helps identify the Cools poster:

1. Rogers set up 66.185.84.204 to act as a web-caching proxy, which means that it channelled the traffic of any of Rogers 800,000 subscribers or anyone who had access to their computers
2. The computer that Warman used to visit the site three times was different from the Cools poster's in several key respects, and Klatt misunderstood the logs he was using

Now Jay proposes a second computer. Does this help? Not really. Klatt's argument is that the IP was the same and the computer was the same. If the computer was not the same, all that's left is the IP, which was shared with millions.


(Comments welcome.)

Deep thought

Are there no Tim Horton's in Ottawa?

If a correction falls in the forest…

Big City Liberal recently expressed surprise that he'd missed that Ezra Levant had posted a minor correction related to his Giacomo Vigna defamation case. (Vigna, in case you forgot, is suing Ezra for suggesting that he'd faked an illness before a Human Rights Tribunal.)

How is it that the ever-vigilant BCL has missed this? The reason becomes clear if you look at the dates. The post in question presently looks like this (apart from the red arrow, pointing at the date):

The blog aggegrator Silobreaker, however, didn't get Ezra's post until a week later (again, note the red arrow):

This can only mean, I think, that Ezra's correction was not originally published on January 18, as it claims, but on the 23rd. As confirmation one might note that the first comment to the post was also made on the 23rd (as noted by me and others here). (Those comments have subsequently disappeared.)

Now, there has been some discussion over at BCL (here, in comments, and here) about what this means. Clearly the post has been "back-dated". (Blogging software allows bloggers to override the dates of their posts, making things appear to have have published either earlier or later than they were written.) Why? Such back-dating has the effect of burying it below other blog posts, with the result that it receives less attention than it otherwise might. Whether that was the purpose here is for others to judge.

Update.

When did Ezra really publish his 'correction'? His post was picked up by the aggregator regator.com as its item 229754183:

The posts are apparently numbered in sequence:

• 229754181 is from Jan. 22, 2010 at 09:30 PM
• 229754182 is from Jan. 23, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Since Ezra's post is next in the numerical sequence it too must be dated to the 23rd.

Second Update.

If there is any doubt, here is Ezra's own atom feed, which dates the post to January 23rd:

Blogging uncool (but we all knew that)

A Pew study on the Internet confirms our darkest fears:

• In December 2007, 24% of online 18-29 year olds reported blogging, compared with 7% of those thirty and older.
  
• By 2009, just 15% of internet users ages 18-29 maintain a blog—a nine percentage point drop in two years. However, 11% of internet users ages thirty and older now maintain a personal blog.

The really bad thing? The only thing less cool than blogging is reading blogs. Gotcha.

It's official -- the onion ring is king!

Some wit started a facebook group this morning: Can this Onion Ring get more fans than Stephen Harper?

Harper, you see, has 29,916 fans facebook fans.

A few minutes ago, the Onion Ring King has 29,919!

Canadians against Proroguing Parliament passes 150,000

Meanwhile, the Facebook group "Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament continues to grow. It has just passed 150,000.

Mmmm .... doughnuttsss

Did someone say doughnuts?

Is there an interesting story behind the shirt? I betcha there is!

From Palin's recent book tour:

Heh.

No corkscrew? Try this?

Halloween candy rots your teeth ... and more (mwuahaha)!

From Pat Robertson's CBN:

During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure ... During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.

The word "occult" means "secret." The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:

Sex with demons
Orgies between animals and humans
Animal and human sacrifices
Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
Revel nights
Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.

Musical chairs

No, musical stairs. Check it out.

RRRRRR!

It is, according to Dawg, blog like a pirate day. It's a good think I have one of these:

heh.

Fun with charts

For those who appreciated my earlier attempts at the analysis of charts, I offer:

Interesting statistic

The number of Americans who lose their healthcare insurance every day: 14,000.

The number of Canadians? None.

Save the Brazilian rainforest by peeing in the shower!

… at least when you're in Brazil:

Heh.

Looks like Barack and I have a something in common:

A comment on the birther controversy

Obama Debunks Birther Conspiracy - watch more funny videos

Who is responsible for wafergate?

Kady O'Malley discusses a set-to between Warren Kinsella and Lifesite.org over some rather clumsy conspiracy mongering on lifesite's part.

Social conservatives seem eager to diminish or dismiss any concern over the Prime Minister's mistake. Apparently it was anyone's fault but Harper's. Social Conservative activist John Pacheco, for example, had originally blamed the presiding priest for not having given clear instructions , later suggesting that the whole fuss was a Liberal smear. In fact, according to Pacheco, the true desecration here was the Liberals and the Media, who showed disrespect to the Eucharest by making it a political plaything.

So what's one to make of this? Leaving aside the potential for making investment advice ("buy tinfoil futures!"), all this loses sight of the fact that if Harper had not asked for the communion wafer, he never would have been given it.

And responsibility for this, ultimately, falls to the PM and his PMO. Taking communion was a breach of protocol, and the Prime Minister's Office employs hundreds of people in order to, among other things, keep the PM from fucking up on the public stage. If Harper didn't know that he wasn't supposed to take the host in a Catholic service, someone has failed: the person who is supposed to review the PM's itinerary for protocol issues. Now, I have no idea who does this in the PMO, but whoever it is, he or she should answerable to the Chief of Staff, Guy Giorno.

Impolitical's greatest hits

Today Impolitical notes AECL comes out in favour of...an AECL decision. This adds to her great posts about the Isotopes Crisis, which you can see in her summary thread, Blog Post Index: Medical Isotope crisis & Chalk River shutdown. There you will find a list of her many posts on the subject together with a brief summary of the contents of each post.

Indeed, I was so impressed by her work on the Medical Isotope issue that it reminded me of the old K-Tel records: "20 original hits! 20 original stars!". Hence:

"What can be better than reliving the old times! Who can forget Lisa Raitt saying "Cancer is Sexy"? Or Jasmine Macdonell's taped conversations with Lisa Raitt? Or heavy water leaks? Maple reactors? Linda Keen being fired? All that and more you can see at Impolical's Power House index of the Isotope Crisis."

the Isotope Crisis. While you're there you can relive the old times! Who can forget Lisa Raitt saying "Cancer is Sexy"? Or Jasmine Macdonell's taped Lisa Raitt? Or Chalk River Maple reactors Linda KeenIsotopes crisis href="http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2009/07/blog-post-index-medical-isotope-crisis.html">medical Isotopes shortage

More on Shona Holmes

Shona Holmes has received notoriety in recent days for doing a commercial for an American lobby group in which she claims that she had a brain tumour that threatened her life, that her treatment was delayed in Ontario, and that she had to pay for her own treatment:

"I am a Canadian citizen, and as my brain tumour [sic] got worse, my government health-care system told me I had to wait six months to see a specialist," Holmes says in the commercial. "In six months I would have died."

She is suing the Ontario government for her costs.

Her story, however, is quickly falling apart. She did not have a tumour, but a cyst, as her testimonial at the Mayo clinic shows (link; archive). And, it seems, it was her vision that was threatened, not her life.

So what's the deal? Was Ms. Holmes confused about her own diagnosis and prognosis? This is, I'm afraid, not likely.

Creative Revolution points out that Shona Holme's lawsuit is being funded by the Canadian Constitution Federation, a political advocacy group that funds right-wing legal challenges (they were profiled in the Toronto Star). The CCF's wikipedia article has recently been scrubbed, but if you know the right people you can see both the original article and all of the edits that produced it. Here is what was added on 13 June 2008 by user jamesmclean23:

Who is jamesmclean23? Creative Revolution points out that there is a James Mclean who is co-author of a CCF study, and in the June 2008 CCF newsletter (pdf), a James McLean is described as a CCF staff researcher, at exactly the time the above edits were made to wikipedia article.

The point? A staff-member of the group funding Shona Holmes' lawsuit against the province of Ontario wrote of Holmes' prognosis thus (my emphasis in red):

Shona Holmes was told she would lose her vision forever, unless surgeons immediately removed her growing brain tumour. But Ontario's government monopoly health care system told Shona whe would have to wait for months just to see specialists and obtain treatment. Not willing to risk permanent blindness, Shona obtained surgery at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Within ten days, her vision was completely restored.

Given that the only way Mr. McLean would know what Shona Holmes was told was from Ms. Holmes herself, we have here a serious discrepancy, since this is not the story that Holmes told Americans, where she claimed to be facing death, not blindness.

Contest: Name that tune for Harper's Power House

Impolitical, as many have noticed, has pulled together a great index thread for the Isotope Crisis. While you're there you can relive the old times! Who can forget Lisa Raitt saying "Cancer is Sexy"? Or Jasmine Macdonell's taped conversations with Lisa Raitt? Or heavy water leaks? Maple reactors? Linda Keen being fired? All that and more you can see at her index thread for the Isotope Crisis. It's reminiscent, isn't it, of a "greatest hits" album?

This all reminded me of the old TV commercials for K-Tel. So I thought it would be fun to put one together. And you can contribute by suggesting a tune! Enter early, enter often. The best entry will win a prize — Canadian Cynic will say something nice about the winner. (Or maybe he won't, I don't really know.)

Anyway, here's the cover art. Go to town!

the Isotope Crisis. While you're there you can relive the old times! Who can forget Lisa Raitt saying "Cancer is Sexy"? Or Jasmine Macdonell's taped Lisa Raitt? Or Chalk River Maple reactors Linda Keen

Open letter to Russ Hiebert about the CHRC, Dean Steacy, and wifi hacking allegations

Dear Mr. Hiebert,

In a recent letter to the National Post you wrote the following.

Further, uncontradicted expert evidence presented before the hearing demonstrated that investigator Steacy illegitimately used an unsuspecting private citizen's wireless Internet service to post his offensive comments.

This contains several mistakes.

You are referring to the allegation that on Dec. 8, 2006, Dean Steacy logged into Stormfront using the IP 70.48.181.203.

The "expert evidence" to which you refer is that of a Bell technician who testified on March 25, 2008. If you had bothered to read the transcripts of that testimony, you would know that he did not testify that Steacy had used "a private citizen's wireless internet service to post his offensive comments". Rather, he merely identified the Bell customer who had control of the IP 70.48.181.203 on Dec. 8. He said nothing about that person's wireless, nor about any posts made by anyone anywhere. That is all the supposition, speculation, and conspiratorial fantasy accumulated at extremist blogs and discussion sites in the weeks following that hearing.

Nor, in fact, did Steacy post any comments at all on Dec. 8, as you say, much less offensive ones. Steacy's pseudonym, jadewarr, has only ever made one comment at Stormfront, on Sept. 15, 2006. (It's not offensive, by the way.) Steacey posted nothing on Dec. 8; he merely logged in on that date.

This gets to the central problem with the allegation. The software used for the Stormfront bulletin board records IPs for posts, but not log-ins. A Stormfront moderator, however, has publicly attributed the IP 70.48.181.203 to jadewarr for a different date.

So you can see, although you are correct to say that the "expert evidence" of the Bell technician is uncontradicted, the allegation of wifi-hacking has been investigated by the privacy commissioner and dismissed as likely the result of "a mismatch on the part of a third party".

So in a single sentence above you have made at least three factual errors: the expert testimony said nothing about anyone's wireless; Steacy did not post any comments on the day in question; and the whole allegation has been contradicted by the privacy commissioner.

Everyone, of course, makes mistakes. You, however, are offering this error-filled sentence -- and these are not your only errors -- to rebut claims that you had been misinformed. Did you actually read any of this material?

All of this, however, raises an even more problematic aspect of your recent performance. You chair the Parliamentary Subcommittee for International Human Rights (SIHR), which is a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE). As Chair you have held hearings on Canadian Human Rights Commission. Why is it that your committee is delving into the CHRC at all? To compare how Human Rights is handled in Canada as opposed to other states? Or was the point to provide a platform whereby defamatory allegations could be made in privileged circumstances?

Sincerely,

Buckets

cc: ReidS@parl.gc.ca, SilvaM@parl.gc.ca, ThilaE@parl.gc.ca, SweetD@parl.gc.ca, HiebeR@parl.gc.ca, MarstW@parl.gc.ca, CotleI@parl.gc.ca

Other posts relevant to this controversy:

• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 1: background
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 2: someone else notices Jadewarr
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 3: when exactly did Steacy/jadewarr have 70.48.181.203?
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 4: theoretical possibilities
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 5: Lemire's motion for jadewarr's IP
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 6: what did Lemire ask Black about jadewarr?
  
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 7: the right IP on the wrong date
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 8: the technician's testimony
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 9: Black affidavit
• The spy who didn't shag my wifi 10: the software records posts not log-ins
• CHRC cleared of wifi hacking allegation: I told you so
• An open letter to Senator Anne Cools about 90sAREover and the Richard Warman allegation

Index to impolitical's istope posts

One of the best bloggers on the progressive side of the blogosphere is impolitical, whose posts are a model of careful collection of material, accurate reporting, and sound analysis. There is, also, a soupçon of policy wonkiness.

One issue that impolitical has been following carefully in recent months has been the collection of collection of mishaps associated with Chalk River, Lisa Raitt, and the production of medical isotopes.

It struck me that an index of all her posts would be worth having. So here it is. Enjoy!

• July 08, 2009: Still no leadership on isotope file
• July 06, 2009: Lisa Raitt & isotope shortages back in the news
• June 23, 2009: Isotope Shortage tracker
  
• June 20, 2009: Back to the 50's
• June 19, 2009: Citizens concerned about the isotope issue
• June 18, 2009: The Economist on Conservative leadership failure on nuclear energy issues
• June 18, 2009: Minister Raitt: Look here at home for the isotope solution
• June 18, 2009: Pressure on government to reverse Maples reactor decision
• June 17, 2009: Failing Health Care 101
• June 16, 2009: Truthiness on isotopes
• June 14, 2009: Good question
• June 12, 2009: What if we had a solution to the isotope crisis...and our government ignored it
• June 11, 2009: Trying to change the channel
• June 10, 2009: Drip, drip, drip
• June 10, 2009: Capricious contempt
• June 10, 2009: Experts skewer the Harper team on the isotope file
• June 09, 2009: Pushing our limits
• June 08, 2009: Time for Ms. Raitt to resign
• June 08, 2009: Awaiting the Raitt tape publication decision
  
• June 08, 2009: "It's all bad"
  
• June 04, 2009: The more they say serious, somehow I don't think they really are
  
• June 04, 2009: Things that need some of that "corrective action"
  
• June 03, 2009: "Active commercial information"
• June 03, 2009: The credibility deficit: Lisa Raitt kicks it up a notch
• June 02, 2009: Your credibility deficit is showing again, part II
  
• May 30, 2009: Your credibility deficit is showing again
• May 29, 2009 Friday notes
• May 28, 2009: They're doing their "best" and that's the problem
• May 26, 2009 "The irony is complete"

Harper's protocol breach

As Impolitical and Galloping Beaver pointed out earlier today and others today, Harper decided that the troops should salute him before the Governor General at the Canada Day celebration. And, as Jason Kenney makes clear in the following clip, the decision to do so was Harpers, no one elses.

Update. More commentary on this at Impolitical.

Eyes right! (Happy Canada Day)

Gymnast put to sleep after breaking leg

Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put To Sleep After Breaking Leg

An open letter to Senator Anne Cools about 90sAREover and the Richard Warman allegation

Dear Senator Cools,

There has been some buzz in recent days about the testimony of Professor Robert Martin of the University of Western Ontario regarding Human Rights Commissions, which (if you haven't heard it already) can be heard here (loading can be slow, so be patient).

Professor Martin, who spoke in his testimony of his high regard for you and noted that he regarded you as a dear friend, seems to have been especially exercised by allegations that Richard Warman was responsible for a nasty racist screed about you -- so nasty, that he wouldn't (quite rightly) repeat its words. (Nor will I.)

The problem with Martin's testimony is that Warman didn't write that post. He has denied the matter under oath and has sued for defamation those who have made the allegation in unprivileged circumstances. Moreover, the allegation was debunked over a year ago, largely on the internet (from where all these allegations began), including at my site.

One of the basic facts, as you may know, is that that the racist post in question was made by someone using the pseudonym "90sAREover". The allegation that this was Warman depends on the claim that "90sAREover" had the same IP as "lucy" (Warman's pseudonym) and a computer with the same set-up.

• the IP in question, however, was a web-caching proxy shared by most Rogers customers, as I have shown in a post called "Why there is room for doubt that Richard Warman wrote the Cools post". To summarize a long and technical argument, 90sAREover could have been any Rogers customer, or anyone with access to the computer of any Rogers internet customer. This could have been millions of individuals.

• It has also been claimed that Warman's computer was set-up identically to the one that made the racist post. This would not be especially helpful even if true: something over 10% of users had their computers set-up that way (see here), and 10% of millions is still hundreds of thousands. The set-up, however, was not identical. In a post called "why Richard Warman is innocent" , I demonstrate that the computer used to write the racist post was different in at least one key respect from Warman's computer, with the result that they must have been computers.

The technical argument of my posts may be unintelligible to you, and there is no reason that you should believe me -- an anonymous guy on the internet. If you forward this letter to someone knowledgeable in these matters they will confirm to you that there is no good evidence that Warman made the post in question. (That the IP was a proxy and therefore represents a potentially vast pool of users has been endorsed, for example, by the Conservative blog Catprint in the Mash.)^*

During his testimony, Prof. Martin said that you personally were greatly agitated at Warman for these remarks. You have every right to be agitated about this post. But not at Warman, who did not make it.

Obviously, if you have any questions that I can help with, I'd be happy to do so.

Best regards,

Buckets

cc:ReidS@parl.gc.ca, SilvaM@parl.gc.ca, ThilaE@parl.gc.ca, SweetD@parl.gc.ca, HiebeR@parl.gc.ca, MarstW@parl.gc.ca, CotleI@parl.gc.ca

Why there is doubt the Warman wrote the Cools post, Why Warman is probably innocent of the Cools post, Bernard Klatt

Edited to clarify catprint's analysis.^*

The end of rubber ducky

I'm sure that I'm not the only one to react to the following story with shock and dismay:Canada to pull plug on ‘rubber duck' chemicals:

Health Canada plans to ban the “rubber duck chemicals,” six compounds widely used in the manufacture of soft plastic children's toys, after similar restrictions in the United States and the European Union.

Scientists have raised alarms about the compounds, known as phthalates, because they may block the production of testosterone, a critical male hormone.

There is growing scientific evidence – disputed by makers of the chemical – that everyday exposures can cause a slight feminization of baby boys, particularly during fetal development.

Phthalates are among the most common chemicals added to plastic, making it more pliable and less brittle. They are also found in cosmetics and other personal care products, although the new Health Canada regulations would not cover that variety, known as DEP.

Health Canada also said it would propose a cut to the amount of lead allowed in consumer products, such as paints on toys and children's jewellery.

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said in a statement that the measures would “help ensure that products intended for children are safe.… This is part of our overall effort to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.”

And, so, in memory of the passing of our dear friend the rubber duck, I offer you this musical interlude:

National Aboriginal Day reminds us there's lots still to be done

Before it slips my mind, it's useful to note that yesterday was National Aboriginal Day across Canada. Ceremonies were held across the country. Some of this was celebratory, of course, but there are some sad things to remember, too, including Canada's sad legacy with regard to residential schools, as this story in the Globe reminds us.

While National Aboriginal Day was marked across the country yesterday with celebrations of culture and community gathering, in Saskatoon there was a sombre tone as survivors of Indian residential schools were honoured.

Speakers included Ted Quewezance, who was taken from his family at the age of five and shipped to a residential school, where he said he was sexually abused for five years.

"I remember the day I was taken away," said Mr. Quewezance, whose voice broke as he talked about the difficulty of reliving his childhoor horrors.

Survivors have already received apologies and compensation from the federal government, and earlier this year Pope Benedict expressed sorrow for what had happened at the schools, about 75 per cent of which were run by the Catholic Church.

And, of course, is the lingering challenges with reforming the Indian Act and making native self-government a reality.

For coverage of a lot of these issues, it is worth visiting, Meaghan Walker Williams blog as well as the official Meaghan Walker Williams article archive (for several years she reported for the MSM on aboriginal issues).

xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx Other stories on Meaghan Walker Williams
Meaghan Walker Williams profile
Meaghan Walker Williams trade proposal
Meaghan Walker Williams libertarian
Meaghan Walker Williams blog profile
Meaghan Walker Williams candidate
Meaghan Walker Williams story
Meaghan Walker Williams activist
Meaghan Walker Williams free trade
Meaghan Walker Williams
Meaghan Walker Williams story archive

Stay classy, Vic!

The Lac Dubet Leader is reporting that Vic Toews has sent an anti-Ignatieff leaflet as his constituency mailing (link).

Provencher MP Vic Toews got in on the smear campaign action last week, sending out a mailing to his constituents painting Ignatieff as a Ukrainian-hater. Toews takes some Ignatieff quotes that could be interpreted as racial slurs toward Ukrainians and displays them completely out-of-context, giving the impression that Ignatieff has an ax to grind with anyone of Ukrainian ancestry.

The two quotes come from Ignatieff’s book Blood and Belonging, which explores Russian stereotypes of Ukrainians. At first the glance the quotes are provocative, but only because they’re being read completely apart from the book they’re taken from.

It is material that was fairly thoroughly discussed in 2006 when Ignatieff was running for leader the first time around.

I'm not surprised, of course, that Conservatives would want people of Ukrainian descent to see these quotes. It does surprise me, however, that a prominent minister would want his own name so closely associated with something that's a bit, well, sleazy.

Will you take a cheque?

Here's an interesting one. Italian police report that they found some U.S. government bonds found in the false bottom of a suitcase. The suitcase belonged to two Japanese travelers who were about to cross into Switzerland. (link):

The bonds, with a face value of more than $134 billion, are probably forgeries, Colonel Rodolfo Mecarelli of the Guardia di Finanza in Como, Italy, said today. If the notes are genuine, the pair would be the U.S. government’s fourth-biggest creditor, ahead of the U.K. with $128 billion of U.S. debt and just behind Russia, which is owed $138 billion.

That's a heck of a surprise on your credit card bill.

Tapes show that Raitt cares most about pleasing Harper

Stephen Maher, the reporter who broke the Raitt tapes for the Chronicle Herald, adds some perspective today (here; archive link).

What I find most surprising about the recording of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt is not what she says, but what she doesn’t say. …

At no point does she show any concern for the issues that Canadians pay her to look after.

When she discusses wind power and the medical isotope crisis, she only expresses concern for them in relation to her career hopes.

She doesn’t say: "I hope we make sure that wind producers are getting the support they need to develop their industry."

Instead, she is worried that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will blame her for a leak to CanWEA, the wind producers’ association. Someone in her department had let on to the group that they were going to get an expanded development fund to build wind farms in the budget.

The money wasn’t in the budget, though, and Ms. Raitt suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice had taken it and steered it toward carbon sequestration in the oilsands, which is sure to put a glint in the eye of Calgary oil executives.

Ms. Raitt doesn’t care about that. She is afraid that Mr. Harper may blame her for the leak.

This, of course, is point similar to what I wrote here.

And for those wondering about the rest of the tapes, note this paragraph:

In the section of the recording that we have been able to decipher (we are now having the recording cleaned up electronically so we can hear more of the conversation), Ms. Raitt speaks to an aide about cabinet colleagues, her career ambitions and — over and over again — what might please or displease Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

So there might be a lot more to come.

Hmm ... who really left those notes at CTV

From today's Toronto Star:

But there was one sign she, too, perhaps suffers from the forgetfulness that cost MacDonnell her job.

Raitt was heading off the stage when she stopped, grimaced and walked back.

She'd left her speech on the podium.

The perils of having a big-screen tv

Spector on Oliphant

Norman Spector makes some interesting observations about the Oliphant inquiry into Karlheinz Schreiber's dealings with Mulroney and his government.

Under Jean Chrétien's Liberals, the project was put to death in less than two years; during the Conservative era, it proved impossible to kill. How can one explain the differing response to Mr. Schreiber's aggressive lobbying?

It was certainly not due to any change in his modus operandi: To counter the consistent opposition of the public service, Mr. Schreiber spent freely, engaging well-connected lobbyists of both political stripes. And their advice to Mr. Schreiber was consistent: Get the project out of the hands of the public service and raise it to the political level.

The rest makes an interesting contrast between the way Chretien's and Mulroney's governments handled similar pressures.

Paul Wells nails it: the real shame in the Raitt scandal

Yesterday I wrote and complained about Raitt's approach to policy. Paul Wells today makes a similar, though fuller and more subtle, point today (link):

There’s no point getting on too much of a high horse about all this. Everybody likes to get credit, and in politics when you enhance your reputation by doing good it puts you in a position to do more good. But that conversation was recorded in January. And since it is now five months since Raitt was so eager to be thanked, it would be cheering if she had done more in that time that deserved thanks. No such luck: Chalk River was shut down after she made these comments, it remains shut down, and there is no reason for optimism about its chances of starting back up any time soon.

Wells extends his analysis to make a sociological observation about the nature of minority government:

This is how it goes lately in Ottawa. We are now five years into a string of successive minority governments that began when Paul Martin nearly lost the 2004 election. There is no reason to expect the winner of the next election to have a majority either. It could be Stephen Harper, it could be Michael Ignatieff, but neither will command a majority in the House. So the distinguishing feature of post-Chrétien Canadian politics—its precariousness—will continue.

Which means just about every parliamentarian will continue to spend part of the day thinking the way Lisa Raitt did on that tape. Will your staff shield you on the issues? Or will you roll the dice and hope for all the credit? It’s all about jockeying for position, because in a state of constant combat readiness, position is all you have. In government you can’t plan, because in six months you might no longer be the minister. In opposition you can’t say what you would do differently, because even if you know, you need to keep it under wraps until the campaign that’s eternally around the corner.

This is, of course, correct. But just because there is this danger implicit in minority governments doesn't mean that it we can't hold someone responsible. Who?

Note that this eternal short-term memory syndrome isn’t the certain fate of any minority Parliament. Just this one. Stable minorities have often formed, in various provinces or in Ottawa’s past, when a governing party could reach out to one or two other parties. But Stephen Harper doesn’t trust anyone enough. He keeps power and authority too close to him to build stable relationships with any of his opponents. In fact, he keeps his own ministers out of the loop on any serious issue. Bureaucrats in the ministries talk about getting “the full Langevin,” when the Prime Minister’s staff in the Langevin Block, across the street from the House of Commons, take over a hot file and push a minister’s department out of the way.

We interrupt our regular program …

… for a musical interlude.

Oh, Dear! what can the matter be?
Jasmine's suing for privacy!
Five hours, left in the lavat'ry!
What will those tapes have to say?

Oh Dear! what can the matter be?
MPs getting all blustery!
Someone's speaking too frank-i-ly
What will the press have to say?

Oh Dear! what can the matter be?
"dice rolls" and "cancer can be sexy"!
hey, hey! where's the apology?
and what will Harper have to say?

Oh dear! what can the matter be?
my, my, now that's an apology!
mem'ries offered so tearily!
but what else will the tapes have to say?

Raitt: "if it's just about money, we'll figure it out"

There is, of course, a good deal of snideness being said about Lisa Raitt these days and her political observations, which have become public by what can only be described as bad luck for her and good luck for Stephen Maher, who is in the process of putting together a string of noteworthy stories.

Now she is on the receiving end of a string of snipes. That is politics. There is, however, a policy end to this that is also rather disturbing.

The conversations were made in January, when troubles began to appear at Chalk River. Her take on the crisis is here:

“You know what? Good. Because when we win on this, we get all the credit. I’m ready to roll the dice on this. This is an easy one. You know what solves this problem? Money. And if it’s just about money, we’ll figure it out.”

Today, of course, we've learned from the Prime Minister that, no, money isn't going to fix it (link):

Harper told the media there's no quick fix to the shortage of medical isotopes caused by the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor and that in time Canada will no longer produce isotopes at all.

"Eventually, we anticipate Canada will be out of the business" of making isotopes, Harper said, adding that it was a difficult decision but the government determined that "we can't spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and never produce an isotope."

Now, it seems to me safe to assume that it is not Lisa Raitt's fault that medical isotope production will end in Canada. But surely I'm not the only one to be concerned about what these comments reveal about this minister's approach to policy. It's not just that she seems more interested in getting political credit than solving the underlying problem — hey, if she would have been able to fix this, she should have gotten credit! The problem is that she seems to assume that the solution is money. "And if it's just about money, we'll figure it out."

We now learn, however, that it's not just about money. And if the minister had been looking for solutions other than money earlier, the government may have been able to avoid being in the position that it finds itself in now: scrambling to find a way to minimize the number of cancer patients who will die because someone fucked up.

Senior Conservative official: apology delayed because Raitt 'crying and feeling sorry for herself'

Why didn't Raitt apologise sooner? A "very senior" government official is quoted as saying (link):

"She was in her office crying and feeling sorry for herself."

What else, one wonders, is in those tapes?

The drip, drip, drip begins: Raitt thought clean energy funds diverted to oil producers

And now it begins. Stephen Maher has five hours of Raitt's musing about life, the universe, and everything. Out of this he will be able (one assumes) to mine a week or two worth of stories. Today, we learn that Raitt was concerned about how the environment ministry under Jim Prentice was channelling clean energy funds towards Alberta:

Money earmarked to support wind energy producers was diverted to research and development in the oil patch in backroom budget wrangling, the minister of natural resources said in a conversation with an aide in January.

Lisa Raitt told aide Jasmine MacDonnell that she suspects Environment Minister Jim Prentice took the money for wind power and redirected it to his Clean Energy Plan – a $1-billion fund for research and development in the oil sands.

Money quote:

“I would have no way of knowing that. I understand that's what happened. My suspicion is, what I told you, that Jim took the money for his clean energy plan. They said 'Ah, they don't need it.' There should never have been any choice. No one asked my opinion on it. If they had, I would have lobbied. Maybe that's why I'm invited to P and P (priority and planning, a cabinet committee). Oh, the prime minister's not going to like that.”

Next on Raitt's hitlist: Joy Smith

And now from the Winnipeg Free Press:

she also makes disparaging remarks about Winnipeg Conservative MP Joy Smith.

Raitt said Smith had made a bad move by introducing a private member’s bill that would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for the human-trafficking of children.

"Speaking of career-limiting moves, I’m in shock that MP, Joy Smith, brought forward private member’s legislation on human trafficking," Raitt says on the tape.

Smith had just introduced the bill that week.

"She’s on Canada AM. And the reason being, is that there’s no way any of us should be introducing anything around justice issues or finance issues right now. You just can’t touch those two things."

Is an apology too much to ask for?

Apparently not if you are another Conservative minister. Apology offered and accepted.

Canwest: Health minister accepts colleague's apology for taped remarks:

Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq has accepted her colleague Lisa Raitt's apology for disparaging remarks made about her that were caught on an audio tape, and says she's putting the ordeal behind her so she can concentrate on her work.

If, however, you might be just a little offended that cancer be described as "sexy"? Not so much.

CTV: Harper and Raitt stand defiant in political storm:

Despite intense pressure, however, both Raitt and Harper refused to give an inch as both stopped short of even issuing a formal apology.

Metroland: Harper, Raitt unapologetic for 'sexy' cancer comment:

An unbowed Stephen Harper is standing by his embattled and unapologetic natural resources minister, dismissing the storm of criticism swirling around Lisa Raitt.

Opposition parties and cancer survivors called for Raitt's resignation - or at least an apology - Tuesday for describing the shortage of isotopes used in cancer tests as a "sexy" issue from which she could benefit politically.

They got neither.

Update. Teary Raitt says she's sorry

Raitt: Environment minister Prentice "panders to oil sands"

I suggested earlier today that there will probably be more coming out of the Raitt tapes. Sure enough, it's started. Another Conservative minister is slagged. From Oil Week magazine:

OTTAWA _ Yet another federal cabinet minister is being dragged into the Lisa Raitt taped-conversation controversy.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice is the second minister subjected to a less-than-flattering assessment from the natural resources minister.

Sources familiar with the tape say Raitt suggests her colleague is pandering to Alberta´s oil sands.

What makes that observation surprising is that Raitt _ as natural resources minister _ is responsible for defending the oil sands, while Prentice is responsible for reducing carbon emissions.

Sources say the Conservatives are bracing for more unwanted headlines from a five-hour audio tape obtained by the Halifax Chronicle Herald.

In the first such story, the Halifax newspaper quoted Raitt questioning the abilities of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

The five-hour recording was made by accident and found by a Herald reporter.

More to come from the Raitt tapes?

The Chronicle Herald, the paper whose reporter Stephen Maher broke the Raitt tapes, reported this morning on the court case arising out of Jasmine MacDonnell's request for an injunction.  About half way down is this interesting detail about the contents of MacDonell's recorder:

The last of the 15 files on the recorder was more than five hours long and consisted of a series of conversations between Ms. Raitt and Ms. MacDonnell as they were travelling in British Columbia."

We have heard perhaps 30 seconds of this discussion so far -- perhaps the most damaging. But there may be other details coming.

Raitt on nuclear isotope crisis: "I'm ready to roll the dice on this"

Chronicle Herald story about Riatt is now posted.

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt called the medical isotopes crisis "sexy," said she wanted to take credit for fixing it, and expressed doubts about the skills of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq on a recording obtained by The Chronicle Herald.

Money quote:

“You know what? Good. Because when we win on this, we get all the credit. I’m ready to roll the dice on this. This is an easy one. You know what solves this problem? Money. And if it’s just about money, we’ll figure it out. It’s not a moral issue.”

“No,” says Ms. MacDonnell. “The moral and ethical stuff around it are just clear.”

“It’s really clear,” says Ms. Raitt. “Oh. Leona. I’m so disappointed.”

Who is paying for the lawyers? And what did Harper know and when did he know it?

Over at BCer in TO Jeff Jadras points out that Soudas' denial is strangely specific. He points to David Aken's piece here,

Dimitri Soudas, press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said no government department is involved in the hearing in Nova Scotia on Monday afternoon. Soudas said he had no knowledge of the matter. Steve Outhouse, who has replaced MacDonnell as Raitt's director of communications, also said his office had no knowledge of the matter.

"No government department" seems to be overly specific, leading Jeff to ask the obvious question whether the Conservative Party is involved.

The important question here, I suspect, is who is paying for MacDonnell's lawyer?

This is all the more important in light of another little nugget in Aken's story.

Canwest News Service has also learned that senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office were briefed on the contents of the tape last week.

which leads us to that old classic: "What did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it?

Update. Note the Conservative Party, apparently. From here:

Ryan Sparrow, a spokesman for the Conservative Party of Canada, said the party has no connection to the matter.

Update 2. From question period today, as reported in the Globe and Mail:

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson didn’t address the question, or the inference that at least the Conservative Party of Canada is paying the legal bills. “The minister [of Natural Resources] is not a party to the action and the Government of Canada is not involved.,” Mr. Nicholson said.

Update 3 This may not add anything of value, but Tim Powers, a Conservative operative who blogs
at the Globe and Mail wrote: "Ottawa is all in a lather again about a tape recorder left behind in a bathroom by an aide to Lisa Riatt". So is this how it started? A lost tape recorder?

Addicted to secrecy

James Bowie has broken another example of the Harper government's addiction to secrecy (now also at the Star). Apparently Jasmine MacDonnell, the aide who was fired over Raitt's brief-fook, had made a tape of a meeting that includes Raitt's unflattering comments about federal health minister Leona Agluukaq and other matters.

According to the Star

Justice Gerald Moir will hear the injunction motion by an as-yet unnamed applicant who is also seeking an order of confidentiality or publication ban. Such an order could block any publication of the identity of the applicant seeking to stop the newspaper from publishing, said spokesman John Piccolo.

Now, it is not especially surprising that the government will attempt to keep the public from hearing a leaked tape. But we are not even going to know who is applying for the injunction?

update More now at the Globe and Mail.

An unnamed applicant wants to prevent the Halifax Chronicle Herald from publishing a story by reporter Stephen Maher. The hearing will determine whether the article will be subject to a publication ban and whether the name of the applicant will remain confidential.

Sources said Ms. Raitt's former director of communications, Jasmine MacDonnell was the applicant in the court hearing to have the story quashed.

Ms. MacDonnell was dismissed from her job last week after a binder of documents marked “secret” relating to the nuclear industry in Canada was left behind at a CTV news studio in Ottawa after an interview with Ms. Raitt.

Dmitri Soudas, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Monday that the government of Canada was not involved in the injunction.

…

Some reports suggested that Mr. Maher had listened to a recording, taped by Ms. MacDonnell, in which the minister makes uncomplimentary comments about Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

…

Liberal MP David McGuinty told the House he has heard that Ms. Raitt had been recorded making disparaging remarks about her colleague, Ms. Aglukkaq, “who she described as not very competent.”

Mr. McGuinty urged Ms. Raitt to say whether that was an accurate description of what is on the tape.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson rose in Ms. Raitt's defence, saying the minister was not party to the court proceedings and reiterating Mr. Soudas's statement that the government was not involved.

Are Whites-Only Signs part of the Conservative vision for Ontario?

According to leadership candidate Frank Klees, apparently yes. He has introduced a private members bill (which you can see here) that would remove the prohibition of such signs from the Ontario Human Rights Code. If there could be any doubt as to what Klees intends to do, it is dispelled by the explanatory note he adds to the bill:

The Bill repeals section 13 of the Human Rights Code which prohibits a person from publishing or displaying before the public material that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under Part I of the Code.

Section 13 of the Code has a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a core value of democracy from which all other rights naturally flow and without which our political system would perish.

There is, of course, a lot of room for debate about what limits, if any, should exist in regards to freedom of expression. But when it comes to any chilling effect of "Whites Only" signs, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would say "Chill away".

Crossing the border for health care

No, not that border. Our neighbour's other one. According to UCLA researchers a million Californians cross the border to Mexico for health care each year.

The study by the school's Center for Health Policy Research, published Tuesday in the journal Medical Care, affirms what has long been suspected – that the untamable cost of medicine is forcing many, particularly Latino immigrants, to look outside California for medical and dental care. As casualties from the recession rise and as budget-strapped government programs eliminate health services, more people are expected to head south to fill prescriptions, get teeth fixed or undergo care for chronic illnesses.

According to the study, at least 952,000 California adults – 488,000 of them described by the study as Mexican immigrants and about a quarter as non-Latino whites – head south annually for their medical, dental and prescription services.

Universal health insurance and entrepreneurship

Washington Monthly has an interesting article on entrepreneurship and universal health care.  Universal health insurance, far from suppressing entrepreneurs, could be a boon to it.

The main reason for this is a phenomenon known as "job lock," a term coined during the last round of debate over universal health coverage in the early 1990s. Job lock refers to the fact that workers are often unwilling to leave a current job that provides health insurance for another position that might not, even if they would be more productive in that other position. This is because employer-provided insurance is traditionally the only reliable form of fairly priced private insurance coverage available in the U.S. The alternative is to purchase insurance in the nongroup market, where insurance prices and availability are typically not regulated, so insurance companies can drop individuals when they become ill or charge them exorbitant prices. As a result, individuals feel "locked" into less productive jobs.

Over the past fifteen years, dozens of studies have documented the detrimental impact that job lock has on the economy.