Tory Tape Worms

These gormless, unethical nitwits really shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near recording devices of any sort.

The NDP says it may pursue criminal charges after the Conservatives covertly listened in, taped and distributed audio of a closed-door NDP strategy session.

Priceless. As is this elaboration by Thomas Mulcair in the same article concerning the now infamous letter from Harper to the Governor General in 2004 demonstrating the rank hypocrisy of the Conservatives:

As for the substance of the call, Mulcair said the talks with the Bloc were perfectly normal consultations between parties in a minority government. They began only after the government’s economic update was delivered last Thursday, he said.

And Mulcair pointed as an example to consultations that took place between Layton, Harper and the Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 when the Liberals were freshly installed as a minority government.

Harper, who was leader of the Opposition at that time, held lengthy discussions with Layton and Duceppe aimed at supplanting Paul Martin’s Liberal government without an election in the fall of 2004.

Those talks did not invoke a coalition, but rather revolved around replacing the elected Liberal minority with a Conservative government led by Harper and supported by the New Democrats and Bloc on an issue-by-issue basis.

So much for the undemocratic “coup d’état” talking point being flogged by certain Conservative “blowhards” (who shall remain nameless to save them the embarrassment of their own idiocy).

Update: Jeff has the video of Mulcair’s press conference this afternoon.

Bonus snark from Scott Brison talking on Newsworld this morning: “I knew that Stephen Harper had the policies of George W. Bush, but I was shocked and appalled to see that he’s got the ethics of Richard Nixon.” (Or words to that effect — a loose transcription from memory.)

54 Replies to “Tory Tape Worms”

  1. To clarify – that infamous letter was cosigned by Layton, Harper and Duceppe was dated September 9, 2004.

    The first speech following the 2004 election was read on October 5, 2004.

    Layton, Harper and Duceppe did not even wait for the newly-elected parliament to be convened!

  2. Sorry… I meant to write – the first speech from the throne following the 2004 election was read on October 5, 2004

  3. If this tape is truly the product of an illegal interception, then anyone in possession of that tape, including the media, are probably in violation of sectino 354 of the criminal code (possession of property obtained by crime).

    Anyone in the CPC who advocated this interception or facilitated it would also be guilty.

    That said, it is hard to say that the interception is illegal. The person taping it did actually participate in the call after all, whether or not s/he did so by invitation.

    Could the CPC have done this without first seeking a legal opinion?

  4. Eavestroughing on a private conversation is bad manners but not illegal. Taping a private conversation without permission may be grounds for a criminal action, being convicted, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

    Another interesting thing is this: why do members of the CPC believe that they are exempt under the Criminal Code?

    Are they naive? Or is there a deeper psychosis?

    Psychosis? No way… Nix on that.

  5. why do members of the CPC believe that they are exempt under the Criminal Code?

    Because those rules apply to “criminals” and the Conservatives, redeemed in the blood of the risen Christ, and sanctified in holy righteousness ain’t no damn criminals! 😉

    I kid, but who knows? For some reason, they think they can always wangle their way around the rules. Like their travel expense reporting, or their circumvention of their own accountability rules or the”In-n-Out” scam… it may not “technically” have been illegal, but clearly it violated the spirit of the regulations. But “technically” it was okay.

  6. If you’re invited to a conference call, recording it, without anyone else knowing, is perfectly legal (unlike most jurisdictions in the US). What you do with the recording could be illegal, however.

    Canadian law focuses a lot more on motivation.

  7. Speaking of motivation.

    What? Do you expect me to read a column by John Ivison?

    Why don’t you summarise it and explain what you intend to mean by your last comment.

    Think you can do that, Bill? Or is that too much work for your small dead mind?

  8. Where’s Gurmant Grewal when you need him?

    Yeah… at least Grewal’s version would be shorter and better edited.

  9. The tape incident just adds more fuel to this on-going fire — the lack of confidence the opposition parties have in the government. The problem is that the Conservatives are a minority and need the support of one of the other parties to pass legislation. They keep on forgetting this. Now they’re on the warpath attacking the other parties… this truly is a dysfunctional parliment.

  10. Iggy no want play…. have 50 more like him…. Steffie no listen to anyone but self …….

    Fuck, shut up you twit. You obviously have nothing interesting to say.

  11. I’m not entirely sure about the legality of listening-in and recording. Section 183.1 of the Criminal Code speaks of an “intended” participant having the privilege of recording the conversation. I’m not certain that someone who accidentally receives an invitation to a private telephone meeting, and is fully aware that his invitation is unintended, so that he makes a point of remaining undiscovered, can be considered an intended participant within the meaning of the Act. Such a person might be considered to have undertaken an “interception” as covered by Section 184 and be guilty of an indictable offence, with the possibility of a prison term up to 5 years in length.

  12. That may very well be, Bill, but at least I make an effort. All you’re doing is hiding how ignorant you are by being cynical and dull.

    Hypocrite.

  13. O/T , is anyone here in the slightest bit interested in the content of the call ?

    And now he attempts to change the channel.

    Give it rest, Harpocrite. Go back to SDA.

  14. Iggy no want play…. have 50 more like him…. Steffie no listen to anyone but self …….

    Okay, presuming any of that is true, what are the options?

    The Conservatives do not appear to be willing to work with any of the other opposition parties. In fact, instead of building bridges to the other parties, they’re on the attack. They’re like corner dogs right now, biting everything in their path.

    When there is a minority government, opposition parties do not have the luxury of sitting on their hands if they disagree with legislation (I hope the Liberals party remembers this). If they are opposed, they have to vote it down, or else they’ll never hear the end of it (rightfully so if they honestly believe the legislation is harmful to Canada).

    Vote them down so soon after an election — unlikely for there to be another one so soon (although this might provide an economic stimulus to the economy.)

    None of the alternatives in this situation is attractive — so complaining about it is a little pointless.

  15. O/T , is anyone here in the slightest bit interested in the content of the call ?

    Do you mean Layton discussing a strategic partnership with the BQ, like Harper did in 2004?

  16. The Conservatives do not appear to be willing to work with any of the other opposition parties. In fact, instead of building bridges to the other parties, they’re on the attack. They’re like corner dogs right now, biting everything in their path.

    Let me get this straight . They back down on everything and still it’s not enough to stop this foolishness ?

  17. O/T , is anyone here in the slightest bit interested in the content of the call ?

    The only shock would have been if the NDP and the Block hadn’t been in talks on this matter. They signed that letter with Harper hinting at possibly replacing the minority Liberals in 2004. They’ve been consistantly voting down the Conservatives on confidence matters.

    I haven’t seen Fife’s coverage of the matter… did he simply report the story. Did he take a moment to consider how the Conservatives got the tape in the first place? Or was he just the Conservative messenger-boy?

  18. Let me get this straight . They back down on everything and still it’s not enough to stop this foolishness ?

    They go on the air and try and ruin the reputation of Bloc and the NDP by revealing a conference call that somehow they were accidentally invited to. One of their talking points is apparently Dion’s lust for power. This isn’t building bridges — they’re on the attack.

    The smart thing would have been to back down and then call the opposition parties and negotiate with them. Haven’t seen a report of this happening. They’re making decisions without consulting any of the other parties — one of the things they warned Paul Martin’s Liberals not to do back in 2004.

    Whatever happens to them, it’s of their own making.

  19. Rumours, secret sources – eventually I hope the real truth will come out.

    Fife, again, acting like a kid chasing a fire truck and making out like it’s the biggest scandal ever.

    What could Canada’s name be for this taping – Nixon/Watergate – Harper/…………….?

  20. Between a rock and a hard place come to mind , regarding Iggy , or Rae for that matter .

    Like the small dead mind actually knows the difference between the two…

    Go back to SDA, Bill. KKKate misses you.

  21. I just want to go on record that this wiretapping of private conference calls, etc. is totally and utterly UNACCEPTABLE.

    As for one other comment here, about being between a rock and a hard place (Rae/Ignatieff), it has to be said that there is no choice at all. The only viable candidate is Rae. Ignatieff is a dud as big as Dion and dangerous given his own dark and hidden agenda, and LeBlanc, well, he’s a nobody at this point. He should reapply in about ten years’ time.

  22. Let me get this straight . They back down on everything and still it’s not enough to stop this foolishness ?

    No, it’s not.

    And who are you to call it “foolishness”, considering what bullshit Harpo has been trying REPEATEDLY to pull, and which he will pull again if allowed? If that’s not foolish, I don’t know what is. He belongs on the rubbish heap; it’s just a shame the last election wasn’t quite enough to relegate him to it. Unless, of course, you recall the salient fact that an overwhelming majority of Canadians did not vote for the prick.

    But of course, judging from all I’ve seen out of you, you’re not capable of such advanced logic. Back under your rock with you! Don’t come out until you’ve at least evolved opposable thumbs and a cerebellum.

  23. Just saw Pierre Poliviere on CBC squirming away about that letter – can the man be more stupid? A block of frozen Jello would make more sense than him….

  24. That whiny prick is my MP and frankly, even though I’m a libertarian, anything that makes that smarmy demagogue squirm and sweat warms the cockles of my heart.

    I don’t think the coalition will do much better than the Cons economically, but anything that screws over the socons and boobs in the CPC has my support.

  25. “smarmy demagogue”… Heh. A much better description. (I’d just woken up — not too sharp.)

    I’m skeptical about the economic leadership of this coalition too and would like to see some details regarding what they have in mind.

  26. A question for Tories:

    Do you think you are helping your cause by putting Pierre Poilievre out in front?

    (Hint: you’re not.)

  27. even though I’m a libertarian, anything that makes that smarmy demagogue squirm and sweat warms the cockles of my heart.
    Bullshit.
    You are far from a libertarian – if you were, you’d be pissed at the Connies –

    I’m skeptical about the economic leadership of this coalition
    With reason – we need Martin back….

  28. Maybe I’m naïve, but I would like to have seen a healthy debate over the best direction of the economy by the government in a time of impending crisis — this is something that should have taken place during September-October, but instead we got a BULLSHIT election campaign. Fucking useless Cons!

  29. this is something that should have taken place during September-October, but instead we got a BULLSHIT election campaign.

    Contemptible, isn’t it?

  30. Maybe I’m naïve, but I would like to have seen a healthy debate over the best direction of the economy by the government in a time of impending crisis — this is something that should have taken place during September-October, but instead we got a BULLSHIT election campaign.

    The Fundamentals of our economy were strong back then. Funny what a difference a few weeks can make.

  31. Yes, but now they’re claiming they saw all this coming and were taking prudent steps to prevent/avert the crisis (pissing away the contingency fund with tax cuts and hiving off “magic” allocations on the books to “infrastructure” that was never actually deployed in practice…). Good grief, do these fools think that we just fell off the turnip truck and have been stumbling blindly into the dark…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s