Blue Like You

Archive for December 15th, 2007

Some folks are trying to downplay the significance of the allegations that the CBC fed questions to the Liberals in preparation for the Mulroney Inquisition.

But reader ‘Ron’ made a good point on a previous post:

At Sat Dec 15, 12:36:00 AM EST, Ron said…

The comments about Szabo and his handling of this line of questioning during the committee meeting is bang on — I watched the proceedings and was surprised he allowed this line of questioning - up to then he was relatively within bounds in his chairing of the committee but that ruling was way out to lunch. I want to know if he was aware of it in advance; did he know the source; who instructed him to allow the question. I hope the Conservatives come back with questions about Liberal actions and behaviour. Mulroney may not have evidence or direct knowledge but neither did Schriber - just lay out a few suspicions, inuendoes, and broad quesions on what may have happened to the 40 million missing in the sponsorship matter. Since Szabo is so free with the range of questioning, I am sure there will be no problem with this line of questioning.

Sandy also makes a great point at Jack’s Newswatch:

…what is not right is when a journalist influences a member of parliament in what questions to ask on a parliamentary committee. Why? Because that member of parliament has been elected by his or her constituents, is under oath and is granted parliamentary immunity from prosecution of libel.

Therefore, if members of parliament use leading questions provided by a reporter, the journalist and his or her media outlet are enjoying parliamentary privilege by proxy — the result of which could be unfounded allegations, innuendo and smear with absolute impunity…

Sandy also references a great post at The Black Rod.

If this is common practice amongst reporters and elected Members of Parliament, I think we the people need to get involved and scream our heads off!

MSM sure won’t do it for us.

I think I just found my new favourite blog.

Sandy found an update to the CBC ‘investigation’ buried at the end of this article.

Trying to make sense of the Aqsa Parvez murder becomes even more difficult as time goes on.

Today’s National Post describes the relationship between Aqsa and her parents through the eyes of the Tahir family, which had offered her a place to stay prior to Aqsa’s death (Aqsa’s last days):

…The Tahirs say that days after she moved in with them, Mr. and Ms. Parvez came over, and both families had a two hour meeting with Aqsa.

Her mother cried. Mr. Parvez calmly implored his daughter in Punjabi to tell him why she left and what he could do to bring her home. Aqsa barely spoke, except to say that she “just wanted change,” according to Ms. Tahir. Privately Aqsa told her that she wanted “to get more out of life”.

Mr. Parvez appeared to be relieved that his daughter was safe, said Ms. Tahir, and not alone on the street. He was content to see Aqsa living in a household that resembled his own, said Ms. Tahir, and told her to stay as long as she needed to. Aqsa asked if she could bring items from her house back, and he said they would arrange that “together.”

“That’s how he left,” said Ms. Tahir, an immigration and paralegal consultant who immigrated from Pakistan 10 years ago.

But Aqsa, it seemed, was still searching for independence.

A few days after that first meeting, over coffee in Tim Hortons, Aqsa told her father that she wanted to live on her own, she wanted to go to school in the mornings and work in the evenings. Mr. Parvez offered to let her take over the basement. Aqsa said she would think about it…

By that account, you would think that all was sunshine and roses with this family - Just a small issue of teenage rebellion.

So exactly what went so horribly wrong when Aqsa went home to collect more clothes?

Something just doesn’t add up here.