The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Comparing Gomery to Krever and Somalia
Angry In The Great White North compares the language used in the terms of reference of Krever (tainted blood) and the Somalia Inquiry, and concludes, I think rightly, that Gomery's "paragraph K" is considerably more restrictive.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Comparing Gomery to Krever and Somalia:
CTV indicates (see http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1117544151187_117/?hub=TopStories) the Libs are justifying a motion "to show our confidence in the Gomery commission... Cotler, at [a] news conference with Brison, called the Conservative motion "inappropriate, unfounded, redundant, and prejudicial" [in defeat of a conservative motion requiring the finding of fault and naming of names] (what would sitting libs have against that? oh wait....).
So if the conservative motion requiring / authorizing the finding of fault is BOTH "redundant AND prejudicial", doesn't that make the Libs' drafting of the terms of reference for Gomery also prejudicial (or otherwise, how could the conservative motion be "redundant"?). Would that be an admission or just more facially contradictory statements?
Posted by: SEchappe | 2005-05-31 12:02:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.