daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 28,803
- Points
- 1,160
The "Did Minister Sajjan 'Order' Sikh's To Be Airlifted?" Merged Thread
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Points
- 1,210
Food safety getting people sick usually isn't the kitchens fault. I work as a food safety specialist civi side. Bacteria starts growing at 4 hours in the temperature danger zone. People get sick cause units grab their boxed lunches at breakfast, then leave them in the back of the truck till lunch. After 4 hours bacteria doubles every 3 minutes. Troops eat at 1 pm, you have 2 to 4 doublings since breakfast. This equals sick troops.
- Reaction score
- 4,716
- Points
- 1,160
Robyn Urbacjk, writing in the Globe and Mail, explains the Trudeau-Sajjan rules for us:
-----
So it should have taken no one by surprise that Harjit Sajjan responded to a well-sourced report that he betrayed our country, our countrymen and women, and the allies who risked their lives to support us by turning it into an accusation.
The Globe and Mail reported last week that as defence minister, Mr. Sajjan instructed Canadian special forces to rescue about 225 Afghan Sikhs who were seeking refuge during the Taliban takeover in August, 2021. According to various sources, Mr. Sajjan’s directive took resources away from evacuation efforts of Canadian citizens and Afghans who had worked alongside our troops during its mission in Afghanistan.
Mr. Sajjan, who is now Canada’s Minister of Emergency Preparedness, said he received information about the Afghan Sikhs from a Canadian Sikh group (the directors of which, according to reporting by The Globe this week, donated to his riding association around the same time) and relayed that information to Canadian special forces, but he said that he “did not direct the Canadian Armed Forces to prioritize Sikhs above others.” When he was asked during a news conference last week to explain the difference between “directing” and “ordering” the military, he responded by calling The Globe’s report “utter b.s.” and suggested that racism motivated the reporting. “I didn’t think I’d be getting those questions if I wasn’t wearing a turban,” he said. “It needs to be called out.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used nearly the exact same mode of defence in early 2023 when he was asked about leaked reports on China’s attempted interference in Canadian elections. At first, he claimed the reporting was inaccurate (though he more politely used the phrase “many inaccuracies,” instead of “utter b.s.”). He then suggested that some of the reporting – specifically, about irregularities in the nomination race that elected Don Valley North MP Han Dong – was motivated by “anti-Asian racism.” It has since been publicly disclosed that Canada’s intelligence agency had credible information that Beijing was involved in transporting a bus of international students to vote for Mr. Dong.
Mr. Sajjan didn’t actually answer the question about how he draws a distinction between a direction and an order during that news conference, though Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre later answered it for him: a direction essentially isan order. “We follow legal direction and the groups that were listed were part of … approved groups, so we got on with it,” he told The Canadian Press. He said his role is not to decide “whether the government priority was right or wrong.”
Having been defence minister for about six years by that point, Mr. Sajjan surely understood that there is no such thing as a “suggestion” from the Minister of National Defence to the military. Yet this attempt to split hairs over definitions was the same explanation that Mr. Trudeau leaned on to defend his actions during the SNC-Lavalin affair. At the time, he said he merely suggested then-attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould consider a deferred prosecution agreement for the beleaguered company; he didn’t instruct her to seek one.
For Mr. Sajjan, this report comes at the tail end of a ministerial tenure imbued with scandal: he exaggerated his role in a key battle during his tour in Afghanistan; his office hired a reserve officer from his old unit (who had been suspended for having a relationship with a subordinate) to work as an aide; he failed to act on recommendations to root out sexism in the military in a 2015 report by a former Supreme Court justice, and instead the government commissioned a new report by another former Supreme Court justice; he said he chose not to look at an allegation of sexual misconduct against then-chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance when it was brought to his attention; he said he wasn’t reading e-mails during the Kabul evacuation.
But this accusation eclipses all the others, for how deeply Mr. Sajjan appears to have both perverted his power and betrayed his oath. The Canadians left behind in Afghanistan and the Afghans who bravely assisted our troops deserve answers. But in this government, there is no scandal too serious to merit actual introspection. No reporting that can’t be flipped around to malign the character of the reporters. Mr. Sajjan will continue to remain in cabinet. And shame on you for asking about it."
-----
And David Parkins, drawing in the same journal, explains the Liberal Party's summer of 2024 'communications' strategy.
-----
Harjit Sajjan will remain in cabinet, and shame on you for asking about it
One thing that Canadians have learned over the course of the past nine years is that, in this government, there is no such thing as a lethal scandal. Ministers don’t resign in disgrace. Public displays of contrition are verboten. No accusation is ever so egregious as to demand an actual response; no charge so serious as to merit sombre reflection. Ministers will deflect, reject, maybe explain a little bit. But they never, ever concede.So it should have taken no one by surprise that Harjit Sajjan responded to a well-sourced report that he betrayed our country, our countrymen and women, and the allies who risked their lives to support us by turning it into an accusation.
The Globe and Mail reported last week that as defence minister, Mr. Sajjan instructed Canadian special forces to rescue about 225 Afghan Sikhs who were seeking refuge during the Taliban takeover in August, 2021. According to various sources, Mr. Sajjan’s directive took resources away from evacuation efforts of Canadian citizens and Afghans who had worked alongside our troops during its mission in Afghanistan.
Mr. Sajjan, who is now Canada’s Minister of Emergency Preparedness, said he received information about the Afghan Sikhs from a Canadian Sikh group (the directors of which, according to reporting by The Globe this week, donated to his riding association around the same time) and relayed that information to Canadian special forces, but he said that he “did not direct the Canadian Armed Forces to prioritize Sikhs above others.” When he was asked during a news conference last week to explain the difference between “directing” and “ordering” the military, he responded by calling The Globe’s report “utter b.s.” and suggested that racism motivated the reporting. “I didn’t think I’d be getting those questions if I wasn’t wearing a turban,” he said. “It needs to be called out.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used nearly the exact same mode of defence in early 2023 when he was asked about leaked reports on China’s attempted interference in Canadian elections. At first, he claimed the reporting was inaccurate (though he more politely used the phrase “many inaccuracies,” instead of “utter b.s.”). He then suggested that some of the reporting – specifically, about irregularities in the nomination race that elected Don Valley North MP Han Dong – was motivated by “anti-Asian racism.” It has since been publicly disclosed that Canada’s intelligence agency had credible information that Beijing was involved in transporting a bus of international students to vote for Mr. Dong.
Mr. Sajjan didn’t actually answer the question about how he draws a distinction between a direction and an order during that news conference, though Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre later answered it for him: a direction essentially isan order. “We follow legal direction and the groups that were listed were part of … approved groups, so we got on with it,” he told The Canadian Press. He said his role is not to decide “whether the government priority was right or wrong.”
Having been defence minister for about six years by that point, Mr. Sajjan surely understood that there is no such thing as a “suggestion” from the Minister of National Defence to the military. Yet this attempt to split hairs over definitions was the same explanation that Mr. Trudeau leaned on to defend his actions during the SNC-Lavalin affair. At the time, he said he merely suggested then-attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould consider a deferred prosecution agreement for the beleaguered company; he didn’t instruct her to seek one.
For Mr. Sajjan, this report comes at the tail end of a ministerial tenure imbued with scandal: he exaggerated his role in a key battle during his tour in Afghanistan; his office hired a reserve officer from his old unit (who had been suspended for having a relationship with a subordinate) to work as an aide; he failed to act on recommendations to root out sexism in the military in a 2015 report by a former Supreme Court justice, and instead the government commissioned a new report by another former Supreme Court justice; he said he chose not to look at an allegation of sexual misconduct against then-chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance when it was brought to his attention; he said he wasn’t reading e-mails during the Kabul evacuation.
But this accusation eclipses all the others, for how deeply Mr. Sajjan appears to have both perverted his power and betrayed his oath. The Canadians left behind in Afghanistan and the Afghans who bravely assisted our troops deserve answers. But in this government, there is no scandal too serious to merit actual introspection. No reporting that can’t be flipped around to malign the character of the reporters. Mr. Sajjan will continue to remain in cabinet. And shame on you for asking about it."
-----
And David Parkins, drawing in the same journal, explains the Liberal Party's summer of 2024 'communications' strategy.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Points
- 1,210
Quock correction, meant to type 30 minutes not 3
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 28,803
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 3,960
- Points
- 1,140
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,861
- Points
- 1,040
Thats the classic Trudeau government response to questions that will hurt them. Just like the most recent OIC changes for the firearms act, when ordered to provide the info which would be damning for them to the court it suddenly became classified.
Aim for a transparent government, what a joke.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Points
- 1,210
We need a mechanism so a judge can still read classified material
We do. What’s happening here is people are mixing up classification with cabinet confidence. Different sections of the Canada Evidence Act. Classified material can be a colossal pain in the ass, but there’s a mechanism to test the crown’s national security privilege claim in camera in court and then decide what that means for a trial or other legal action. For cabinet confidence, the privilege is absolute. Sections 38 through 39 of the Canada Evidence Act refer.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Points
- 1,210
Can a change in government lead to a new government changing thst status or once it's declared does it stay cabinet confidence?
You’re asking “can the government release the government’s secrets?” I expect they could, but I’m getting farther into speculation here. There may be a recognized it not explicit convention of respecting the cabinet confidences of past governments to the greatest possible extent, in the interest of protecting your own current government’s ability to make decisions now without fear of political shenanigans later. Offhand I can’t think of us having seen much in terms of new-government-gotchas when they pull the curtain away from something the last guys did. Note that where I referenced the Canada Evidence Act protections, that applies to criminal and civil court proceedings. It’s not a restriction imposed on the government from choosing to declassify or disclose.
Stepping back from any individual issue or controversy, cabinet confidence is pretty damned important to the government of the day being able to function and make decisions on national policy.
- Reaction score
- 1,114
- Points
- 1,160
Makes sense, but Canada has never had a government that is this unethical and corrupt. There is a first time, but it will open the floodgates in the future.
IMHO I think Canadians will want to know how they money was spent, to whom, and who was actually making the decisions as our gadfly enjoyed flipping around in Emperor Class.
IMHO I think Canadians will want to know how they money was spent, to whom, and who was actually making the decisions as our gadfly enjoyed flipping around in Emperor Class.
- Reaction score
- 24,425
- Points
- 1,090
You mean like "this will be the last election under first past the post"?
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Points
- 1,210
Funny enough the British labour party just won promising the same thing. If they actually do it, it would destroy Trudeau's argument that it was to complicated to implement
- Reaction score
- 15,229
- Points
- 1,280
Or, they will “realize” that the system that elected them works fine…
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,467
- Points
- 1,160
It seems like this government has weaponized it though.
If all of our previous governments have been getting away with the crap this one has then it's something that should be revisited to provide more oversight.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 28,803
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile, this is what real racism looks like.
Reggie Jackson on playing baseball in America...
- Reaction score
- 15,229
- Points
- 1,280
After checking out the wiki on Canadian govt scandals (and remembering such gems as Orangegate and Elbowgate), I would suggest that previous govts have gotten away with it as Cabinet Confidence, but it wasn’t reported on.
Most folks probably haven’t really heard about it until the past few years, but it’s not a new thing. The change in govt coverage to the social-media-centric sound bites means that yes, more points of view can be publicized, but also that (like Biden’s last video where @mariomike put the full video on that showed he didn’t say what was alleged) words can be easily twisted to suit a particular point of view.
- Reaction score
- 3,075
- Points
- 1,260
Just remember the old rule that if you don’t like your enemies to have a certain power, be very careful about giving someone you like the same powers.
