Month: July 2005

In a report released by the Fraser Institute this month, it was revealed the Adscam was much larger than Sheila Fraser realized.

Relationships were grown between the Liberal Party of Canada and various advertising agencies in Quebec and Ontario ($7.4 million of legal business between the Liberal party and the agencies, for exchange of $3.9 million in donations). These transactions are completely legal as these exchanges are between private organisations. However, these relationships created favouritism when the Government of Canada had to contract advertising services as $1.2 billion of contracts were paid by the government to these companies with cozy Liberal relations. To emphasize this cozy relationship, the companies involved with Adscam gave 98% of their political donations to the Liberals and only 2% to other parties. Clearly, these advertising companies knew that the Liberals were their best bet for future corrupt deals.

There were other new revelations uncovered by the Fraser Institute report published this month.

Particularly striking were donations made to the Liberal Party of Canada by the RCMP and by the Privy Council Office.

For the “privilege” of protecting the Prime Minister and other members of his campaign team during the 2000 campaign, the RCMP paid the Liberal Party $112,000 for seats accompanying the PM.

The Fraser Institute reports:

“It is an apparent conflict of interest for government agencies, especially those engaged in law enforcement, to pay a governing political party for services rendered during an election. This financial entanglement can impair perceptions of independence and due process that are essential to the proper functioning of those agencies.” — Fraser Institute report, July 2005

One would expect that the taxpayer would pay for the services of the RCMP to protect the Prime Minister. However, it is counter-intuitive that the RCMP (ie. the taxpayer) would pay a private organization (ie. the Liberal party) for work done by the federal law enforcement agency.

The Privy Council Office paid $44,000 to the Liberal Party for similar “services”.

Ipsos Reid released a poll today describing the influence of blogs on the news, the media and upon public opinion.

In short, 58% of online Canadians believe that blogs influence public opinion, 45% believe that blogs influence the MSM and 41% believe that blogs influence politics and public policy.

First of all, there is no doubt that blogs influence public opinion, however, how they influence opinion is not so clear. I believe that blogs have the potential to inform Canadians of different perspectives and information, however, most of blogging influence may manifest itself in the polarization of blog readers. Of course, the same can be said of the influence of columnists on newspaper readers. I’d like to think and am fairly confident that well-written blogs have the same effect on popular opinion as well-written newspaper columnists. The latter has the benefit of authority of course, but blogs have the advantage of world-wide propagation when merited. Most bloggers are not compensated financially for their opinions and this therefore makes them appear more credible.

As for the effect of blogs on the mainstream media, one does not have to look farther than Dan Rather in the United States and the deconstruction of a false story propped up by underlying bias. This is an example of the contrary influence of blogging on the MSM. Indeed, one of the adopted roles of the blogosphere has been to keep the MSM accountable. As for examples of blogging working in concert with the MSM to break and sustain stories, the number of examples is numerous. In fact, fellow Blogging Tories such as Angry in the Great White North, and Blue Maple Leaf have had their analyses recaptured within the mainstream media (examples here and here). Personally, I’ve been interviewed by CTV, the Globe and Mail and have had interview requests from CH Television and CBC Radio. Perhaps the greatest example of blogs on the MSM was the breaking of the publication ban on the Jean Brault Gomery testimony by Blogging Tories and Captain’s Quarters. (Captain Ed broke the story with our help and we redirected Canadians to that “American blog”). Jane Taber of the Globe and Mail called me during the height of the story to learn about the coordinated Blogging Tories effort.

Do blogs have an influence on politics and public policy? Yes, of course they do and I can cite examples! I’ve already mentioned the Jean Brault publication ban, when once lifted, brought the Liberals down to their lowest public opinion standing in 20 years. Another example of the influence of blogs on politics was the emphasis on“Clause K” of Judge Gomery’s mandate, revealing that it left the Justice with no teeth. MPs Monte Solberg, Andrew Scheer, and Steven Fletcher are bloggers themselves and I’m told that while Stephen Harper doesn’t spend much time online, Mrs. Harper is a fan of blogs.

Blogging in Canada, specifically Conservative blogging in Canada, represents a huge potential that is being realized day-by-day. Media, public opinion, and politics all exist within one continuous cycle and the media component is usually dominated by Liberal bias. Bloggers represent those (for the most part) without influence in the MSM. The role of the blogosphere is to inject truth where it is lacking, ideas when it is stagnant, and accountability as it is always needed.

Tony Blair:

“It is through terrorism that the people that have committed this terrible act express their values, and it is right at this moment that we demonstrate ours. I think we all know what they are trying to do – they are trying to use the slaughter of innocent people to cower us, to frighten us out of doing the things that we want to do, of trying to stop us going about our business as normal, as we are entitled to do, and they should not, and they must not, succeed.

When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated. When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm. We will show, by our spirit and dignity, and by our quiet but true strength that there is in the British people, that our values will long outlast theirs. The purpose of terrorism is just that, it is to terrorise people, and we will not be terrorised.” — Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

George W. Bush:

“The contrast between what we’ve seen on the TV screens here, what’s taken place in London and what’s taking place here is incredibly vivid to me. On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you’ve got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn’t be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill — those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them, we will bring them to justice, and at the same time, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.” — George W. Bush, President of the United States

Paul Martin:

“Our collective freedom has come under attack today by those who would use violence and murder to force extremism upon the world. We must and we will stand against these terrorists. We will do so together. And we will prevail” — Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada

Gerhard Schroeder:

“I and all the leaders of the G8 summit condemn in the strongest possible terms these insidious acts, which have cost the lives and health of many innocent people … We agree that the international community must do everything and use all available means to fight terrorism together.” — Gerhard Schroeder, Chancellor of Germany

Jacques Chirac:

“These acts are unqualifiable. This contempt with regard to human life is something which we must fight with an unceasingly increased firmness and increasingly more interdependence between the great nations of the world against [terror and those that commit it]” — Jacques Chirac, President of France

Vladamir Putin:

“As you know, an immense crime has been committed in London today. In this respect, I would like to say that Russia, too, has confronted terrorism on many occasions, has confronted cruel and bloody crimes that have taken the lives of hundreds of innocent people, our citizens.

It is for precisely this reason that people in Russia, like nowhere else, are so profoundly affected by what has happened, feel such sympathy for the victims and send their condolences. But also today’s events are yet another confirmation that we are all doing too little to unite our efforts to fight terrorism in the most effective way possible. I would like to express not only the hope, but also the confidence that the international community will abandon all double standards with regard to atrocious crimes such as those committed today in London and will find every possible solution and make every possible effort to counter terrorism, to fight it together and to find within itself the resolve to eradicate entirely and for good this scourge of the twenty-first century.” — Vladamir Putin, President of Russia

Junichiro Koizumi:

“I give my full support to Prime Minister Blair and offer my full cooperation” — Junichiro Koizumi, Prime Minister of Japan

John Howard:

“I express my horror and disgust at this cowardly attack on innocent people. These sorts of attacks will not alter the determination of free countries to do the right thing. It’s important that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our British allies at a time such as this.” — John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia

Bertie Ahern:

“This is terrorism and violence perpetrated against ordinary people. It’s just a black mark on society, a devastating blow against people. This is a huge emergency. A terrible, sad day.” — Bertie Ahern, Prime Minister of Ireland

Jose Luis Zapatero:

“Spain has suffered the scourge of terrorism for decades and on 11 March last year it was the victim of the most horrific attack recorded until then in Europe. Spain has suffered the scourge of terrorism for decades and on 11 March last year it was the victim of the most horrific attack recorded until then in Europe. We share their pain intensely, just as they and so many other peoples of the world did with us on other occasions.” — Jose Luis Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain

Ken Livingston:

“Innocent people going from all of London’s communities have been targeted by this indiscriminate attack. I urge Londoners from all of this city’s diverse communities and faiths to support one another and stand together against terrorism.

I want to say one thing: This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners.

That isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith, it’s mass murder. We know what the objective is. They seek to divide London.

Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old,” he said. It was an “indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion whatever.” — Ken Livingston, Mayor of London