Al & Mike Show Episode 20

Thanks guys, I enjoyed your show.

Something struck me as you were discussing HRC's with Kathy. The CHRC has allowed investigators and apparently looked the other way when others built cases against "haters" using tactics that could only be described as baiting is in some measure responsible for this Warman vs. bloggers legal action.

Had there been appropriate restraints in place as to what is permissible investigative technique, we would not be where we are today. There would be no jadewarr, pogue mahone, lucy nor axetogrind, at least not bringing forward evidence at HRC hearings. There would be no pseudonymous postings to debate. There would be less concern about the fairness of the process - although still not a level playing field. I'm not certain that there would be less public concern about the overall objectives of the HRC's and their agents but at least defendants would not be vulnerable to what I see as the equivalent of a legal Ponzi scheme.

It is improbable that the CHRC will ever recognize its complicity in this mess but it is time that the government got involved.

The CHRC is like Richard Warman as revealed in the Macleans piece on him this week.They are about as self-aware as David Ickes. They trudge on with no apparent understanding of the consequesnces of their actions nor how the rest of society perceives them.

Just listened to show and thought it was great. I enjoyed the talk with Kathy but I have been following that case closely so there was not much new info for me. I am interested in reading this Macleans article that Kathy, and Blazingcatfur, have mentioned.

What interested me most was your talk with Mr Nicholls. I think Dion's problem is that he doesn't have gravitas. He comes across as a bookish nerd who you wouldn't want to spend much time with because he would be hectoring you about how wrong you are and how brilliant he is. I was talking to a friend the other day and we were wondering why people focus on Dion's english speaking abilities. Chretien spoke english at least as poorly as Dion does but Chretien was given a pass. Why? The only thing we could come up with was that Chretien came across as a champion for the average Canadian and and we didn't care about little things like how he talked.

The other part of the conversation with Mr Nicholls that I found interesting was Harper and how 'real' he was. I agree with Al, at least I think it was him, that the country is not entirely ready for proper conservative talk or policies yet and things have to be done in increments. However, I also agreed with Mr Nicholls that Harper, and other conservatives, have to start talking like Conservatives. It's no good to move to the centre, the Conservatives have to bring the centre to them. I believe the average Canadian is a right-wing Liberal (Martin-Turner wing) and there is lots of areas where common cause could be found without scaring too many voters.

Gotta ask here because there doesn't seem to be comments at the show site.

What was Al's point [starting at around 37 minutes] about the burden of proof being on the defendant?

In what sounds to me like a very sarcastic tone of voice he says "Well that's what makes it different, that's where you gotta prove the statement is true, in theory, or you lose."

His tone makes it sounded very much like he does not agree that the defendant should be the one carrying the burden of proof.

If that is the case what happens to personal responsibility for statements made?

As a very right conservative I was intrigued to hear Mr. Nicholls's comment on Mr. Harper's failure to sell the conservative brand. I think that while that may be the job of NCC or the Fraser Institute it is not that of the PM. The problem for Mr. Harper is to remain PM he must win the election. The conservative brand (whatever that is these days) varies across this diverse country. While in Ontario the average Canadian may be "right-wing liberal" such is not the case here in BC where the pop'n is divided bet. center liberal and left NDP. Canada has changed and to steer it back to the eighties when it was more conservative is idealistic I think and not where Canada wants to go. Harper must steer the country toward the right incremently as I think he is doing. He is being real. Let Mr. Nicholls run for PM and he will understand this conundrum.

Jon Evan I disagree with you that Mr Harper is being 'real' but I agree that it's a hard course to navigate. I think the current Conservative party is the first proper conservative party since Dief's time at least. Mulroney was a liberal who wore a blue tie and Clark did not last long enough to know what he was.

I don't think Harper is being real at the moment because if you read what he use to write/say in the past, before he was made leader, compared to now it is vastly different. Harper is a 'classic liberal' and that's not how he's presenting himself at the moment. The conundrum you mention is a very interesting one and I'm sure many Cons argue over whether Harper and the government are going too fast/slow or just right in trying to get the conservative message out. I largely agree with you that Harper and the team are doing a good job getting people use to Con thought but I think they could be doing more. I would appreciate more talk about Con first principles - like a couple of weeks ago when Flaherty interjected himself into Ont budget debate. It was refreshing to see talk of tax cuts.

I still think overall, Canada is a right-wing Liberal country. Of course there are pockets of support for NDP, Green and Cons but the Liberal party become as dominant as it did by talking like NDP supporters but governing like a Con supporter would like.

Great show. I agree with jwl, never back in the day could I have forseen Harper as PM, and now that he is he sure isn't practicing what he preached. Hopefully he is trying for a safe and slow conversion, back to a common sense country with debates rather then fear-mongering. That's my optimism coming out though. It sure seems that conservatives are more accepting of differences in opinion than liberals, as seen by the I'll-shut-you-up approach of the HRC's.

April 10th?? This blog must be defunct. I briefly saw your other site to listen to your show but now I can't recall the name. Is there a reason you don't link to it or why you don't update this one? This site must be getting zero traffic. Sorry to see that. I've really enjoyed reading your commentary Mike.