martha
Bev Oda's decision to cut Kairos funding "
Posted on: 02/11/2011 14:57
The latest on Bev Oda and the doctored docs http://bit.ly/gsPqbW
I have to say I read this and while I was pretty surprised at the level of ...ineffectiveness of Minister Oda's defence of her actions, I am utterly appalled that she'll likely get away with this Blatant politicizing of her role.
I'll be writing my MP about this (some guy...Ignatieff) and I really hope that all who care about the United Church's efforts overseas (in concert with our faith partners in Kairos) will express dismay about the lies our government has spread about Kairos, the UnitedChurch and CIDA.
Admittedly Not A Fan of the Conservative Party of Canada, I don't know how even Conservative supporters can stomach this behaviour in Your name( because "the people of Canada" support All the things the CPC does, evidently).
I hope you can take some time to let your politician know how you feel about it (either way! I'm strongly in favour of client feedback!)
Search
Recently Active...
Comments
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 02/21/2011 09:39
Does anybody hear an echo?
Whatever the case, the problem is that she lied - and that Harper lied. That's a resigning offence.
You have to ask yourself - Would Harper have done such a thing to a large, fundamentalist church? Would he have done it to a Zionist group? There's a message in there about government contempt for the United Church as any sort of political or social force.
graeme, I would agree with you more that it's an anti-UCC thing if the only group involved was the United Church. Such is not the case.
From the KAIROS website... "KAIROS unites eleven churches and religious organizations in faithful action for ecological justice and human rights." (source: http://www.kairoscanada.org/en/who-we-are/ )
Are you suggesting the government has contempt for the other ten as well?? Including the more conservative groups involved?
gecko46
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:11
DiManno: Fibbing to Parliament a serious transgression
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/942283--dimanno-fibbing-to-parliamen...
This is a very interesting article....the title doesn't exactly fit DiManno's opinion piece.
I learned some things about KAIROS I didn't know before.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:01
I came across this quote yesterday, you'll appreciate it Qwerty
If I tell a lie, it's only because I think I'm telling the truth.
Phillip A. Gaglardi B.C. politician
Let's keep our eye on the bouncing ball. It is not important that Oda had the authority to deny funding or that she inserted the infamous "not". What is important is she felt the need to deny publicly her authority and decision making. She felt, when questioned about the "not", to answer 'wasn't me' when in fact it was her.
No matter what her original intentions were for denying the funding her subsequent actions make the denial less than credible. If she was confident in her decision she would not need to reduce her role to a mere signator.
Now maybe we have become so cynical about politicians that this type of behaviour has become the norm. Personally I find it unacceptable that people in decision making roles are encouraged to behave in such a manner but maybe my standards are not normal.
And speaking of norms, this is a consistent behaviour of our current government. Tony Clement claimed that he had the support of StatsCan for abolishing the long census - a lie that resulted in the resignation of the man Tony claimed gave that support. Munir Sheikh, that chief statistician, refused to grant permission to that lie. Sadly Mr. Sheikh's sacrifice has gone unnoticed by the public and thus our government continues to believe that they have approval to deceive.
And we will continue to get the government we deserve by the permission we give them...
LB
I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won t.
Mark Twain
sighsnootles
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:02
as to the accuracy of the article, i would assume that as a journalist, she would have checked her sources pretty darn accurately before penning such a piece. especially in the climate that we find ourselves in this week - everything KAIROS will be gone over with a fine tooth comb, i'd say!!!
as far as her assertion that KAIROS needs to shut up and get on with their schtick, from what i know that is pretty much EXACTLY what KAIROS has done... they have been actively seeking private donations since their funding was cut last year. i saw an interview with the head of KAIROS last week where she said that she is so tired of dealing with this fedaral thing already, she just wants to get on with doing their thing. as far as she is concerned, this media storm here is just beating a dead horse.
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:03
Not being snarky, sighsnootles, but those you know who work for the federal government perhaps have not dealt with documents passed between ministers and senior bureaucrats. I did however work in a Cabinet minister's office. One of the things I did was filing of ministerial copies of departmental documents. I was 19-20 at the time - even had to sign a confidentiality agreement. I knew the minister from having worked on campaigns for him and my "patronage" reward was 2 summer jobs on Parliament Hill that helped pay my way through university. I can certainly remember filing documents that had negative notations added by the minister.
From Macleans Magazine, February 18:
"CIDA President Margaret Biggs, who had signed the document, told the committee that there was no issue—that, in effect, the “NOT” was just an annotation and that it is ordinary practice for a minister to mark up a memo in that way, or to ask for it to be done."
She then goes on to say that in the light of this fiasco, CIDA has altered their internal memos to allow the "NOT" to be inserted in a different format.
Oda's fault was not in "forging" the document but in "misrepresenting" the document later. I would like the debate to focus on (a) her dishonesty in misrepresenting what this document meant and (b) the policy issue of whether or not to fund Kairos (which I think should be funded) which has been lost in the politically invented document scandal.
sighsnootles
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:11
I would like the debate to focus on (a) her dishonesty in misrepresenting what this document meant and (b) the policy issue of whether or not to fund Kairos (which I think should be funded) which has been lost in the politically invented document scandal.
well, i'd suggest that a) yeah, she lied about it, whether by changing the entire meaning of a signed document or not, and by stating to parliament that she didn't do it and then oops!! she did.
as to b, governments can fund the groups they wish. they are dealing with taxpayer dollars, and they were elected to make those decisions. i'd say that second guessing a decision like that is really trying to micro-manage the government, and the red tape in that building is waist high already.
you know about this decision, you disagree with it. remember that come election time.
lastpointe
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:14
When I first heard that the government had denied funding to a religious group I figured it was because they are always accused of being part of the Christian right.
So I figured it was part of a pre election action.
Now with them doing well in the polls and the NDP deciding that they have only a few issues about the budget, I doubt there will be an election.
We know that decisions made by any government is politically motivated.
Just like Ontario Liberals are back pedalling on green energy and wind energy because it costs tons, is subsidized tons and people are upset.
So whether they think it valid or not, an election is coming and they figure back off.
Civil servants make recommendations all the time that are overruled. WE just don't hear about it because of confidentiality issues. I had a friend who was the senior civil servant in a particular ministryOntario for a couple of decades. He used to stress terribly about elections, new bosses, new rules, changes..... but acknowledged that it is how we govern
lets move on. If we started firing folks in parliament who lie we would be in trouble. Just listen to a few hours of question period, any year, any decadem any government and decide if the questioners and answers are telling the truth
sighsnootles
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:18
lets move on. If we started firing folks in parliament who lie we would be in trouble. Just listen to a few hours of question period, any year, any decadem any government and decide if the questioners and answers are telling the truth
to me, though, this is different... this is a CABINET MINISTER who has been caught lying. and when questioned on the lying part, the prime minister himself has stepped forward to defend her right to lie openly to the people of canada.
imho, that is heaps different than some back bencher fudging his office budget.
DKS
Posted on: 02/21/2011 10:31
Rosie DiManno in the Toronto Star this morning, rips at KAIROS (and Bev Oda, too)...
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/942283--dimanno-fibbing-to-parliament-a-serious-transgression?bn=1
Kairos is routinely, blandly, referenced as a Christian aid agency, which gives it the imprimatur of innate goodness. That provides an effective moral shield against criticism.
Unlike, say, the American Christian couple that has spent the past seven years sailing around the world dispensing Bibles, old missionary style. Their yacht, Quest, was hijacked by pirates in the waters off Somalia over the weekend and the pair — along with possibly two other people aboard — have been taken hostage, no doubt to be held for ransom.
At least the couple had presumably paid for their own Bibles or received money for their holy inventory from like-minded funding organizations which are totally cool with proselytizing.
By comparison, Kairos wants to do its proselytizing — economically, environmentally and politically — on the taxpayer’s dime: Specifically, a $7 million government grant that was originally approved, then disapproved via a strategically scrawled “Not” inserted into recommendation documents by Bev Oda, minister for International Cooperation.
Kairos is an ecumenical agency that has no doubt it’s on the side of the angels. Perhaps it is, for those who agree that aid groups should be in the business of political activism that 1) clashes with the policies of the funding government; and 2) insinuates itself into both domestic and global controversies.
I am reminded of the high-profile NGOs that refused to participate in urgent charitable endeavours in Afghanistan because those programs were initiated by the Canadian Forces and other military contributors to ISAF. They saw such involvement as compromising, contaminating, the neutrality that permitted them to work in the field with a modicum of safety.
Kairos has no such neutrality. This is an agency that channels the liberation theology, heavily Marxist, espoused by some Christian organizations — primarily Catholic, in South America — during the ’70s and ’80s, until the Vatican told its clerics to knock it off. Several priests had been murdered by government gangs and are still venerated today as martyrs.
Again, if this is the kind of advocacy work you favour, by all means write a generous personal cheque to Kairos. Just don’t pretend it’s a benign agency that should be financially propped up by Ottawa or an innocent victim of Harper-ite meddling.
Recall that Kairos lost its funding in late 2009 when Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told a Jerusalem audience the Canadian government would no longer shovel money to aid groups that take a leadership role in the boycott, divestment and sanctioning of Israel.
Executive director Mary Corkery countered that criticizing the actions of Israel’s government is not anti-Semitic, which is true, although a whole lot of anti-Semites hide behind the polemics of “acceptable” anti-Israel diatribes — a tactic made abundantly clear at Durban I and Durban II.
Kairos has long been an advocate of economic, social and ecological justice around the world, including the Middle East. When Kenney’s remarks were originally publicized, Corkery emphatically denied that the agency favoured a boycott of Israel or promoted divesting funds from Israeli corporations or supported the notion that Israeli academics should not be made welcome on the campuses of any other country’s universities.
Yet Kairos did use its pious muscle to slam Ottawa for putting radically Islamist Hamas and Hezbollah on Canada’s terrorist group list, this after the agency had earlier assured that Palestinians would never elect Hamas because only a minority supported the party. Of course, Palestinians did just that.
The agency was also intimately aligned with other groups, internationally, that have aggressively called for economic and academic boycotts against Israel. Kairos was among the co-sponsors of a controversial 2005 conference in Toronto on “Morally Responsible Investment,” organized by the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Center of Jerusalem, a Palestinian Christian outfit dismissed by its critics as a “fraudulent peace group” with a “racist road show.”
Connections and links with the Israel boycott movement largely disappeared from Kairos’s website after the Kenney incident, a scrubbing of the agency’s obvious political tilt.
In a strategy paper on “economic advocacy measures” published in 2008 — contents approved by their executive — Kairos reiterated Israel’s right to a secure homeland, called for a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders, insisted the agency was not advocating for either sanctions or a boycott of products from Israel, and then devoted much of the document’s 29 pages to exploring how limited sanctions and a targeted boycott might be pursued and intensified by its member churches.
Also adopted were three key proposals:
• That Kairos staff assist members in screening church investments away from “weapons manufacturers, military suppliers, banks and other corporations that abet violence.”
• That, when two or more Kairos members have openly made commitments to pursue shareholder action on the issue, “if requested, Kairos staff will consider undertaking research in collaboration with Middle Eastern partners to identify Canadian companies doing business in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories (that are contributing directly or indirectly to violence, occupation or other human rights abuses in the region).”
• That when Kairos members opt to pursue shareholder action against Canadian companies “doing business in Israel or the Occupied Palestinian Territories (that are contributing directly or indirectly to violence, occupation or other human rights abuses in the region), shareholder action shall move through several stages, from dialogue with senior company management to filing shareholder proposals and, as a last resort, divestment.”
Kairos is not an apolitical, benevolently virtuous aid agency. And it has every right in the world to pursue its agenda, just not necessarily funded by this version of Ottawa government. Those affronted by Harper’s pushback on Kairos can put their own money where their mouth is.
sighsnootles
Posted on: 02/21/2011 12:29
it makes me laugh that this journalist would say that KAIROS is 'marxist'.
and then, as a side note, well, that was back in the 80's.
good grief.
graeme
Posted on: 02/21/2011 20:15
When we don't fire a politician who clearly lies to us, democracy is in trouble. Canadians have come to accept this sort of behaviour. It has happened earlier, at times, in Canadian history. And it has always caused one hell of a stink - and often the offending person moved in another direction. This sort of thing has become routine in this government.
It was at least two years ago that Canadian officials were publicly announcing that Canada would go to Israel's help in any war. That is a complete denial of the principal underline by Mackenzie King in 1939 when Canada declared war a week later than Britain did. He was making the point that as an independent democrary, Canadians had the right, through their mps, to debate the issue and to decide. We might well go to Israel's support in such a case. But that is not for Mister Harper to decide, and not, in case, until we know what the war is about.
Harper decided not to pursue the Mulroney case, though it is probably the most blatant piece of corruption we have ever seen at that level (though probably not the biggest.).
I see no reason to doubt that Harper, himself, is lying about his knowledge of and role in this travesty.
When a nation yawns at that, we're in trouble.
graeme
Posted on: 02/21/2011 20:21
I checked the list of who is in the group of eleven churches. I don't see a whole lot of severe fundamentalists there. In fact,l all are churches that avoid stances on politicians and political issues.
The churches that are fundamentalist are often far more active politically. For that reason, they are courted by Harper. (They also tend to dislike anything that looks like what they call "marxist". For some of them, Ignatieff is a marxist.) Harper was probably (almost certainly) taking up his position at the coattails of an American president.)
qwerty
Posted on: 02/21/2011 22:14
Oh I don't know graeme! The supporters of KAIROS sound like a pretty rafish bunch of radicals to me. Presbyterians! United Churchers! ANGLICANS! Quakers! and Lutherans! Of course, the Lutherans are of the Evangelical variety so you never really know what they might do.
Sounds pretty much like all the mainline churches to me (did I mention Mennonites?). As I said above and as LBMuskoka has pointed out again the insertion of the 'NOT" was a deception undertaken to make it appear that the decision to cut Kairos funding was a bureaucratic decision that the minister was rubber stamping. The intent was that it would not appear that the minister had exercised her political power to turn down Kairos because clearly THAT would have been a political decision that would have required some explanation to be delivered TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF BASICALLY ALL THE MAINLINE CHURCHES IN CANADA ALL OF WHOM SUPPORT KAIROS AND DONATE FUNDS TO IT (and who collectively represent a pretty large constituency of potentially pissed off voters) ... and thus the attempt to save the game by lying even after the jig was clearly up.
Rev. Davis, notwithstanding his "government experience", obviously doesn't get it.
Elis
Posted on: 02/22/2011 00:08
It seems to me that the problem is not that she added the "Not" the problem is that she told the committee that she had no idea who added the "Not" and then later admitted that she was aware that it had been added. I have yet to find out if the "Not" was actually her handwriting or not (I have heard conflicting news reports on that). I'm a lawyer and we often get documents where we want things added or subtracted. That's not a problem, we just do it. But then the additions are initialed by the people signing the contract or entering into the order so that people viewing the document later know who made the alternation and that everyone who should know about the alteration does know about the alteration.
There are some decisions that I could see are so small that I can imagine Ministers making on a daily basis and just forgetting about them, but this one was big. She must have known that there was going to be a lot of fall out (which there was) and the only explanation is that when she was questioned she panicked and tried to blame someone else. That in my opinion shows a lack of morals and that is the reason that she should resign. Although I don't like her initial decision she was the MInister and I don't have to like every decision that she made. The fact she lied - that means she has to go.
Elis
Posted on: 02/22/2011 00:12
Please don't take my post to mean that I think that her decision to cut KAIROS was anything less than political. I agree with all of the posters who say that it was. KAIROS was not towing the Harper line and got its funding cut. Plain and simple. But that is much harder to prove than the fact that she is a liar.
DKS
Posted on: 02/22/2011 09:11
I checked the list of who is in the group of eleven churches. I don't see a whole lot of severe fundamentalists there. In fact,l all are churches that avoid stances on politicians and political issues.
You mean you've never encountered a liberal fundamentalist?
waterfall
Posted on: 02/22/2011 09:22
[quote=Elis]
Please don't take my post to mean that I think that her decision to cut KAIROS was anything less than political. I agree with all of the posters who say that it was. KAIROS was not towing the Harper line and got its funding cut. Plain and simple. But that is much harder to prove than the fact that she is a liar.
[/quote
Why aren't we getting an explanation as to why Kairos funding was cut? It's hard to argue with a decision when you don't know (for sure) why it was made.
Yes let's focus on the "NOT" instead.
waterfall
Posted on: 02/22/2011 09:29
Question:
Is it possible that our government's decisions to fund or not fund Kairos could be influenced from outside our own government, if it is perceived to be politically motivated and has a presence in a currently sensitive area?
Panentheism
Posted on: 02/22/2011 11:27
Please don't take my post to mean that I think that her decision to cut KAIROS was anything less than political. I agree with all of the posters who say that it was. KAIROS was not towing the Harper line and got its funding cut. Plain and simple. But that is much harder to prove than the fact that she is a liar.
Elis, Qweny and Steve make similar points. There are two related but separate issues - yes we need to know why Kairos was cut - from our perspective it was wrong and looks like political interference - we set cida up to be arms length to overcome using aid as a crass political tool.
The other issue is what the minister has done - we all agree that what she lied and tried to blame officals of cida - steve's point is did what is normal in puting the not in - but then when asked she blamed and lied - that is the policitical issue of being dishonorable. It is here all most all of the posts agree - she should be fired.
The other issue, to repeat, is the cutting off of funds of Kairos and many of us find that to be a problem and without justification ( and to those who say it was a church related group - so what for their work transcends church interests and is for the sake of people at the edge) and we are demanding an accounting.
Thus two separate but related issues and many of us confuse them.
sighsnootles
Posted on: 02/22/2011 11:39
really, guys, what could the minister or CIDA say that would make everyone go 'oh, well then. that makes sense that they cut the funding. carry on!!'???
no matter what comes out at this point in time, nothing will be accomplished by someone explaining why the decision was made. was it political? who knows?? but if i have learned anything from harper up until now, it is that even though he may have come into this office with the greatest of honourable intentions, he has become as dishonest as any other PM we have ever had in this country.
there is no doubt in my mind that he and his gang of spin doctors could put together some cock-and-bull story for justifying this action, no matter what the truth is.
come on guys, its the harper conservatives!! this whole party was formed because of peter mackay making a bold faced LIE. do you REALLY EXPECT that the truth on anything will ever emerge from their lips??
cause if you do, i have a bridge to sell you...
waterfall
Posted on: 02/22/2011 11:54
The thing is, if you want to restore the funding to Kairos, you need to know what "reasons" you have to overcome.
This reminds me of the thread in RF about "going the extra mile". Let them keep Oda, it helps to sink their platform anyway and get to the meat of the issue-----funding reinstated.
graeme
Posted on: 02/22/2011 13:13
I have no idea what people mean when they use the words liberal and conservative. Everybody uses them. They mean something a bit different to each person, so something different to both speaker and listener.
For the moment, I don't care what her reason is. Nor is there the slightest change she and the government will give an honest answer. The point is that she lied - and ministerial lying is fatal to a democracy. She has to go.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 02/22/2011 16:26
Oh I don't know graeme! The supporters of KAIROS sound like a pretty rafish bunch of radicals to me. Presbyterians! United Churchers! ANGLICANS! Quakers! and Lutherans! Of course, the Lutherans are of the Evangelical variety so you never really know what they might do. Sounds pretty much like all the mainline churches to me (did I mention Mennonites?).
I notice you didn't mention the Catholics.
qwerty
Posted on: 02/22/2011 17:55
Yes you're right MorningCalm ... Catholics! Now there is a bunch of dangerous rabble rousers.
All kidding aside, it was actually the Catholic grassroots justice and human rights work in Latin American dictatorships favoured by the Harper government that earned much of the governments ire. I imagine Canadian mining interests there also could have had something to do with persuading Harper to make these cuts.
I am putting up a news story from 2009 to give a better picture of the lies that were being told by Mrs. Oda and the Harperites in general.
Here is the link... http://www.christianweek.org/stories.php?id=757
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 02/22/2011 19:47
qwerty
Posted on: 02/22/2011 18:55
Obviously my agreeable response has left MorningCalm speechless ...
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 02/22/2011 19:51
Obviously my agreeable response has left MorningCalm speechless ...
No. For some reason the video I posted isn't showing up. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is a conservative group. I imagine that's why they were omitted from the list of denominations and groups posted above. Hard to say the conservative government is against Kairos because they're against liberal groups when in fact one of the groups is conservative.
Here's the link to the video I wanted to post:
qwerty
Posted on: 02/22/2011 20:10
Well I clicked on the link and got a video by some selfhelp group about "How to Forgive Someone". I think you must have posted the wrong link MC.
But I'm not sure ... I'm just sayin' ...
graeme
Posted on: 02/22/2011 22:01
Oh, I don't know. Catholics can be a fun group. Tonight (for real) I saw a great item in a gift shop. I was called Holy Toast (no. I am not making this up). it was a sort of plastic cookie cutter. You press it onto a piece of bread, and the face of the virgin Mary appears on the bread.
The advertisinig blurb refers to it as a miracle.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 02/22/2011 22:59
Oh, I don't know. Catholics can be a fun group. Tonight (for real) I saw a great item in a gift shop. I was called Holy Toast (no. I am not making this up). it was a sort of plastic cookie cutter. You press it onto a piece of bread, and the face of the virgin Mary appears on the bread.
The advertisinig blurb refers to it as a miracle.
O what, what, are you sayin' conservatives aren't fun?!
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 02/22/2011 23:05
sighsnootles
Posted on: 02/23/2011 07:17
Oh, I don't know. Catholics can be a fun group. Tonight (for real) I saw a great item in a gift shop. I was called Holy Toast (no. I am not making this up). it was a sort of plastic cookie cutter. You press it onto a piece of bread, and the face of the virgin Mary appears on the bread.
The advertisinig blurb refers to it as a miracle.
i have one of those... got it at value village!!
it works pretty good, too.
graeme
Posted on: 02/23/2011 10:36
ss- and do you eat the bread after - with its holy relic?
You're going to burn in hell.
sighsnootles
Posted on: 02/23/2011 10:42
graeme, i've been hellbound for years now. eating a piece of holy toast is merely another drop in that bucket!!!
revjohn
Posted on: 02/25/2011 10:31
Hi Martha,
I have just e-mailed my MP (Phil McColeman-Conservative-Brant) and requested his response to the matter of the doctoring of the document and whether or not Kairos funding should be reinstated in light of the fact that the document was altered.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Two weeks no response.
So I sent a reminder.
martha
Posted on: 02/25/2011 11:26
hmmm: because the House is in recess, and the CPC /aka "theGovernmentofCanada" is throwing money at constituencies for the last gasp of the economic action plan, it's widely speculated that the Oda affair will die and this government will ~sigh~ get away with it. AGAIN.
bright side: the 2006 CPC campaign masterminds have been caught fixing the books on election spending.
So, we'll see if the 'pattern' will be continued. And for heaven's sake: I like my MP a LOT, but he has got to ceed the lead to someone ELSE. (it's Ignagieff...I may have mentioned that before)
revjohn
Posted on: 03/01/2011 23:29
Two weeks no response.
So I sent a reminder.
I got a response today.
Unsurprisingly my MP doesn't see that there is a problem. He claims that Oda has apologized for a lack of clarity and has rectified the misunderstanding.
I don't know if it will be productive for me to challenge that a lack of clarity and lying are not the same thing. I would probably not ask the right questions though.
Grace and peace to you.
John
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 03/02/2011 05:55
RevJohn, perhaps we should all lie and/or doctor our 2010 tax returns and when questioned just apologize for our lack of clarity.
What's good for the goose after all....
LB
Since I no longer expect anything from mankind, except madness, meanness, and mendacity; egotism, cowardice, and self-delusion, I have stopped being a misanthrope.
Irving Layton
revjohn
Posted on: 03/02/2011 08:51
Hi LBmuskoka,
What's good for the goose after all....
Interesting quote. It is about the condiment to be served with the appropriately rosted fowl.
A fall election could brown up quite a few turkeys.
Grace and peace to you.
John
graeme
Posted on: 03/02/2011 20:51
Well, Brian Mulroney got away with lack of clarity on his income tax.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 03/03/2011 08:11
Hi LBmuskoka,
What's good for the goose after all....
Interesting quote. It is about the condiment to be served with the appropriately rosted fowl.
A fall election could brown up quite a few turkeys.
Grace and peace to you.
John
I live in perpetual hope
Suier
Posted on: 03/03/2011 11:55
Our minister did a GREAT sermon two weeks ago about "throwing stones"
While we may beleive that the funding should have gone through, and while we do not support lying or misleading actions. We should look to Jesus for our motivation or where we put our energies. He did not pick up a stone to stone the adultress, he told her to go and sin no more. Personally I am not going to pick up a stone, i am going to follow my Lord and pray for Ms. Oda, it saddends me that in her time of need, she will certainly not look to her faith for support, as they are all holding stones. Lets put our energies into the good works of our Lord!
No stones for me!
alta
Posted on: 03/03/2011 12:09
Well, Brian Mulroney got away with lack of clarity on his income tax.
I think I get what you're saying. If we all changed our names to Brian Mulroney we could all quit paying our taxes. Hot damn, that idea's so crazy it just might work!
Thanks graeme... er, I mean Brian.
Panentheism
Posted on: 03/03/2011 12:12
The phrase go and sin no more is important - it is a call to responsiblity - given that she should resign and the conservatives so stop denying she lied - It is not a call to cast stones but a call to responsiblity - the story in the bible is contextual - it is an critique of an unjust system.
LBmuskoka
Posted on: 03/04/2011 06:14
The phrase go and sin no more is important - it is a call to responsiblity - given that she should resign and the conservatives so stop denying she lied - It is not a call to cast stones but a call to responsiblity - the story in the bible is contextual - it is an critique of an unjust system.
And a story our honourable members of Parliament - on all sides of the House btw - apparently have never either read or understood.
LB
If the gods had intended for people to vote, they would have given us candidates.
Howard Zinn
sighsnootles
Posted on: 03/04/2011 09:19
Our minister did a GREAT sermon two weeks ago about "throwing stones"
While we may beleive that the funding should have gone through, and while we do not support lying or misleading actions. We should look to Jesus for our motivation or where we put our energies. He did not pick up a stone to stone the adultress, he told her to go and sin no more. Personally I am not going to pick up a stone, i am going to follow my Lord and pray for Ms. Oda, it saddends me that in her time of need, she will certainly not look to her faith for support, as they are all holding stones. Lets put our energies into the good works of our Lord!
No stones for me!
good grief, i'm not asking for her to be executed.
i'm saying that she should loose her portfolio.
there is a HUGE difference there.
Elis
Posted on: 03/05/2011 00:29
Our minister did a GREAT sermon two weeks ago about "throwing stones"
While we may beleive that the funding should have gone through, and while we do not support lying or misleading actions. We should look to Jesus for our motivation or where we put our energies. He did not pick up a stone to stone the adultress, he told her to go and sin no more. Personally I am not going to pick up a stone, i am going to follow my Lord and pray for Ms. Oda, it saddends me that in her time of need, she will certainly not look to her faith for support, as they are all holding stones. Lets put our energies into the good works of our Lord!
No stones for me!
It drives me crazy when people make Jesus this Hallmark card of sweet loving "Mommy" Jesus. Remember he was the man who said pick up your swords. He was the one who denied his mother, he threw the money changers out of the temple physically. How I read that story was that he was daring the Powers That Be to punish the girl only if they were willing to withstand scrutiny of their own actions. Of course none of them were so they walked away. This was incredibly brave as they had the power in that confrontation and they could have imprisoned him. This was a story though, and he wanted to tell a moral tale, one where he could point out that we must take responsibility for our actions. But Jesus is not saying that we can turn our backs to injustice in the world or just pray for those who cause injustice and hope that they will do the right thing. Just because he does not flog these rich and powerful men does not take away the stories of him in conflict with other rich and powerful leaders of his time. I think sometimes Jesus demands that we stand up like he did and throw those money changers out of the temple.
sighsnootles
Posted on: 03/09/2011 17:33
so, the speaker has ruled that bev oda has broken the rules...
On Wednesday afternoon, Milliken said the government breached parliamentary privilege by refusing to provide all documents the opposition requested detailing the full cost of its crime bills and tax cuts.
Milliken said MPs are entitled to know the initiatives' exact costs, but the government has declined to reveal the full estimates, citing cabinet confidences.
In a second ruling issued Wednesday, Milliken found that International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda breached parliamentary privilege by misleading MPs when she claimed she did not know who altered an official document that denied funding to a faith-based aid organization.
Oda later admitted she asked an aide to add the word "not" to a document that in fact recommended that $7 million in funding be approved for KAIROS.
Milliken's rulings will now to go a parliamentary committee, which will consider what action to take. On the issue of the costs of the tax cuts and crime bills, MPs will have to decide whether to compel the government to issue all related documents. Committee members will also consider whether Oda lied to Parliament.
The rulings may send Canadian's to the polls this spring. The Liberals are reportedly looking for an excuse to call a no-confidence vote ahead of the March 22 budget.
CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife saying the Liberals, who have been levelling charges of abuse of power against the government for weeks, could move on a non-confidence motion on March 21.
The federal government has found itself at the eye of a political storm as the Liberals attempt to inundate the Tories with wave after wave of allegations and questions of competency.
The prime minister's longtime political lieutenant Jason Kenney, for example, continues to fend off suggestions he has failed to separate his duties as a minister of the Crown with those of a card-carrying Conservative.
In their latest attack on the minister for citizenship and immigration, the Liberals pointed to a House of Commons certificate -- emblazoned with the Conservative Party logo -- that was issued to an Ottawa Chinese restaurant in 2009 as proof Kenney can't keep the two roles separate.
In the House of Commons Tuesday, Liberal immigration critic Justin Trudeau suggested the certificate was part of publicity stunt intended to cast an unfavourable light on comments attributed at the time to then-Liberal insider Warren Kinsella.
In response, Kenney insisted it's natural that he should be identified as both the minister and a Conservative Party member, adding that he could point to examples of Commons-produced material bearing the logos of the Liberals and NDP as well.
"This is not a story about what's appropriate or inappropriate," he said. "It's a story about Liberal hypocrisy."
Undaunted, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff kept up the attack on the Conservatives, as he attempted to widen the scope of the so-called "in-and-out" allegations dogging the ruling party.
When he rose during question period in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Ignatieff demanded to know what part Harper's chief of staff Nigel Wright had in the alleged offences during the 2006 election campaign, at which time he was secretary of the party's fundraising arm.
A total of four high-ranking Tories are facing charges under the Elections Act, of using money transfers from the national campaign to local ridings as a means of exceeding their party's spending limits by more than $1 million.
"The prime minister needs urgently to clarify what the heck Nigel Wright is doing in that group of people," Ignatieff told reporters outside the Commons after question period Tuesday.
He added, "This man is chief of staff to the prime minister. The prime minister needs to clarify his role in this affair."
After debating the matter, the House voted 152-139 Tuesday night to pass a motion calling on Harper to cut his ties with the four Tories facing charges.
The vote was non-binding, however, as the Liberals chose not to make the motion a confidence vote that, if defeated, could trigger an election.
Pinga
Posted on: 03/09/2011 19:41
sweet
waterfall
Posted on: 03/11/2011 06:38
Question:
Does Kairos have an obvious religious agenda and should government be supporting it or any other faith based group?