- Reaction score
- 1,087
- Points
- 1,160
What does Retired Sgt. Major Barry Westholm mean?
Politics in 2014
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Rifleman62 said:
That is a very good question. On the face of it, his statement is false. What veterans (ie: retired military persons) do or don't do has next to no impact on the country as compared to what our politicians do or don't do, or which policies they do or do not pursue.
- Reaction score
- 1,190
- Points
- 1,060
Agreed that his statement is false, but it is rhetoric that requires understanding and perspective. If he means that Canada would simply not exist, succeed or progress as a country without the service of our veterans he is quite wrong. However, if he means that the history created or to be created by our veterans is or will be a part of the lore and culture of the nation, then he has made a point, but it is a weak point>>> one that is not fully shared by many in this country.
He certainly has the right to emotionally characterize the situation anyway that he chooses, but he should not try to characterize the contributions of veterans into something that is larger than the truth.
He certainly has the right to emotionally characterize the situation anyway that he chooses, but he should not try to characterize the contributions of veterans into something that is larger than the truth.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yes. That is what I was trying to say, but you have expressed much better.whiskey601 said:
The Tories might want to figure out how they can fix this bleeding ulcer of their perceived treatment of veterans, since it looks very counter-intuitive on them. Giving Fantino some other job might be a good start: one that doesn't require him to deal diplomatically with other people. Probably not his strongest suit.
- Reaction score
- 2,913
- Points
- 1,260
While that's more likely to happen because it won't cost money, it's also less likely to happen (at least right now, while under fire) because the PM doesn't seem like a guy who wants to look like he's backing down, especially in the case of a Minister the PM's defended in the House more than once in the past while.pbi said:
- Reaction score
- 1,087
- Points
- 1,160
You may not enjoy some of the rhetoric, but the message is on target.
http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
How the Tories lost the military
6 Feb 2014 - National Post - Tasha Kheiriddin
The NDP and Liberals may both capitalize on the government’s failures
In the old days, they called it “shell shock.” Soldiers shivering and crying involuntarily, reliving memories of battlefield horrors even after war had ended. Today, we call it post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, an umbrella term with 17 symptoms, encompassing the full spectrum of negative reactions that trauma survivors, including soldiers, can experience.
In the words of retired Sergeant Major Barry Westholm, quoted online in the Ottawa Citizen, “A person suffering from PTSD has to contend with a sort of horror unlike anyone who hasn’t dealt with the disorder can describe. It is frustrating, terrifying, confusing and debilitating all in one ugly package.”
In the past two months, our country has witnessed at least eight apparent military suicides. The Canadian Armed Forces is currently investigating a backlog of 75 other possible cases. And veterans advocates estimate that for every soldier that does take his or her own life, another dozen have tried.
PTSD, like too many mental illnesses, carries a stigma, one which is especially difficult for military personnel. Military culture frowns on weakness. So why would Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant make such a boneheaded remark as, “The stigma that has to be overcome is a stigma within themselves”? Gallant issued the statement on Jan. 30, when addressing soldiers’ reluctance to seek treatment from the government’s new operational stress injury clinics. That treatment is “completely confidential”, according to Gallant; in other words, since nobody knows, the fear of stigma is all in the sufferer’s head.
That same day, Veterans’ Affairs Minister Julian Fantino had his infamous showdown with a group of military men upset about the closure of eight Veterans’ Affairs Offices. Fantino’s disrespectful dispute spurred veterans’ groups and the opposition to call for his resignation. He refused, apologized, and enjoys the full backing of his government.
These are odd incidents, considering the importance this government places on Canada’s military, and how the Tories have traditionally relied on its vote. Today, the Tories present a strange paradox. They splurge on military tributes such as for the War of 1812. They are restoring 29 memorials and cenotaphs to honour our war dead. They defended and renewed Canada’s mission in Afghanistan through a period of minority government. Overall, the Conservative.ca website solemnly proclaims that “In 2006, after the Liberal Decade of Darkness (a quote from General Rick Hillier), we took action to rebuild Canada’s Armed Forces,” including such diverse initiatives as hiring more personnel, implementing programs to transition vets to the workforce, and defending Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
At the same time, their procurement process is an unholy mess. Their F-35 purchase foundered as the price tag climbed. The government cancelled a $2-billion plan to buy new armoured vehicles. The military still awaits new warships, and helicopters to replace the near-antique Sea Kings. And the Tories managed to alienate veterans with changes to service delivery, at a time when the news is rife with stories of a military mental health crisis.
It is perfectly logical to close eight veterans’ offices, if you can guarantee that you’ll have 600 new points of service. But when veterans are told the person at the end of the phone hasn’t been trained yet to address their concerns, they will be angry, and rightly so. The government should have kept those eight offices running until it was clear that a seamless transition to the new service model could be made.
Beyond that, Ottawa should have realized that it is not just dealing with logic, but emotion. Older vets saved Canada and the Western world from the Nazis. Younger vets grapple with PTSD over the horrors they suffered in Afghanistan. and, and, Being a soldier is not your average job. It has a higher purpose. And most people don’t risk death when they go off to work.
It’s almost pathetic to witness the NDP seeking to capture the military constituency, with their defeated motion to keep those Veterans’ Affairs offices open, after they have systematically opposed a host of Conservative military spending bills. The same goes for the Liberals, who in the last election proposed to return Canada’s peacekeeping to its Pearsonian glory days, without committing the necessary resources.
But both parties sense a weakness, and are bent on exploiting it. The Conservatives cannot take the military vote for granted. Those who serve our country expect their country to serve them — with their hearts, not just their heads.
http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
How the Tories lost the military
6 Feb 2014 - National Post - Tasha Kheiriddin
The NDP and Liberals may both capitalize on the government’s failures
In the old days, they called it “shell shock.” Soldiers shivering and crying involuntarily, reliving memories of battlefield horrors even after war had ended. Today, we call it post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, an umbrella term with 17 symptoms, encompassing the full spectrum of negative reactions that trauma survivors, including soldiers, can experience.
In the words of retired Sergeant Major Barry Westholm, quoted online in the Ottawa Citizen, “A person suffering from PTSD has to contend with a sort of horror unlike anyone who hasn’t dealt with the disorder can describe. It is frustrating, terrifying, confusing and debilitating all in one ugly package.”
In the past two months, our country has witnessed at least eight apparent military suicides. The Canadian Armed Forces is currently investigating a backlog of 75 other possible cases. And veterans advocates estimate that for every soldier that does take his or her own life, another dozen have tried.
PTSD, like too many mental illnesses, carries a stigma, one which is especially difficult for military personnel. Military culture frowns on weakness. So why would Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant make such a boneheaded remark as, “The stigma that has to be overcome is a stigma within themselves”? Gallant issued the statement on Jan. 30, when addressing soldiers’ reluctance to seek treatment from the government’s new operational stress injury clinics. That treatment is “completely confidential”, according to Gallant; in other words, since nobody knows, the fear of stigma is all in the sufferer’s head.
That same day, Veterans’ Affairs Minister Julian Fantino had his infamous showdown with a group of military men upset about the closure of eight Veterans’ Affairs Offices. Fantino’s disrespectful dispute spurred veterans’ groups and the opposition to call for his resignation. He refused, apologized, and enjoys the full backing of his government.
These are odd incidents, considering the importance this government places on Canada’s military, and how the Tories have traditionally relied on its vote. Today, the Tories present a strange paradox. They splurge on military tributes such as for the War of 1812. They are restoring 29 memorials and cenotaphs to honour our war dead. They defended and renewed Canada’s mission in Afghanistan through a period of minority government. Overall, the Conservative.ca website solemnly proclaims that “In 2006, after the Liberal Decade of Darkness (a quote from General Rick Hillier), we took action to rebuild Canada’s Armed Forces,” including such diverse initiatives as hiring more personnel, implementing programs to transition vets to the workforce, and defending Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
At the same time, their procurement process is an unholy mess. Their F-35 purchase foundered as the price tag climbed. The government cancelled a $2-billion plan to buy new armoured vehicles. The military still awaits new warships, and helicopters to replace the near-antique Sea Kings. And the Tories managed to alienate veterans with changes to service delivery, at a time when the news is rife with stories of a military mental health crisis.
It is perfectly logical to close eight veterans’ offices, if you can guarantee that you’ll have 600 new points of service. But when veterans are told the person at the end of the phone hasn’t been trained yet to address their concerns, they will be angry, and rightly so. The government should have kept those eight offices running until it was clear that a seamless transition to the new service model could be made.
Beyond that, Ottawa should have realized that it is not just dealing with logic, but emotion. Older vets saved Canada and the Western world from the Nazis. Younger vets grapple with PTSD over the horrors they suffered in Afghanistan. and, and, Being a soldier is not your average job. It has a higher purpose. And most people don’t risk death when they go off to work.
It’s almost pathetic to witness the NDP seeking to capture the military constituency, with their defeated motion to keep those Veterans’ Affairs offices open, after they have systematically opposed a host of Conservative military spending bills. The same goes for the Liberals, who in the last election proposed to return Canada’s peacekeeping to its Pearsonian glory days, without committing the necessary resources.
But both parties sense a weakness, and are bent on exploiting it. The Conservatives cannot take the military vote for granted. Those who serve our country expect their country to serve them — with their hearts, not just their heads.
- Reaction score
- 2,621
- Points
- 940
Anyone who has seen a copy of his Release memo, with it's multi-page address group from the Governor-General and the Prime Minister on down, know that Mr Westholm has a flair for the self-promoting dramatic.Rifleman62 said:
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
Mercedes Stephenson, CTV News, is reporting (tweeting, actually) that: "Mini cabinet shuffle 2014: [Joe] Oliver to Finance [from Natural Resoirces], [Greg] Rickford to Natural Resources [from Science and Technology] , [Ed] Holder to Science [from the back benches]"
Holder is an Ontario MP, Science and Technology is a "junior" ministry.
Holder is an Ontario MP, Science and Technology is a "junior" ministry.
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
I think it's no secret that I am not a fan of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda. I think it is counterproductive, my sense is that it probably creates as many criminals as it actually punishes, and it panders to a segment of society that I think is wrong headed. But I don't say much about it because I am confident that the Supremes will set things right ... as, the Globe and Mail reports they have on the issue of "a law that applied retroactively to non-violent offenders, taking away their easy access to early day parole, violates their constitutional rights."
The "law and order" people want to pick and choose which rights we have ... it doesn't work that way.
The "law and order" people want to pick and choose which rights we have ... it doesn't work that way.
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
The "big news" today will be the Supremes' decision on the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to that very bench.
In the Globe and Mail Jeffrey Simpson, speaking loudly and proudly for the Laurentian Elites, suggests that:
1. Justice Nadon is not qualified for the high court because he has "no record of outstanding judicial or academic work." Simpson doesn't argue that Justice Nadon no record at all, just that it's not "outstanding;" and
2. We need a stronger process to constrain prime ministers' judicial appointments ~ or is it just this Prime Minister's appointments?
I don't recall such concern when e.g. Rosalie Arbella was appointed (2004). Like Justice Nadon she had a specialized record, but hers was as a very active, outspoken advocate for "social justice," while his is as a specialist in maritime and insurance law. But Justice Arbella was a Chrétien appointment and the Laurentian consensus approved, highly, of M. Chrétien. In fact, the Laurentian consensus only disapproves of Prime Minister Harper because he, unlike King, St Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin, is not an acolyte, he doesn't keep the Central Canadian faith. Worse, he, PM Harper, is trying to split the Central Canadian power base and unite suburban and rural Ontario (90± of 121 seats) with the prairies and suburban and rural BC.
In the Globe and Mail Jeffrey Simpson, speaking loudly and proudly for the Laurentian Elites, suggests that:
1. Justice Nadon is not qualified for the high court because he has "no record of outstanding judicial or academic work." Simpson doesn't argue that Justice Nadon no record at all, just that it's not "outstanding;" and
2. We need a stronger process to constrain prime ministers' judicial appointments ~ or is it just this Prime Minister's appointments?
I don't recall such concern when e.g. Rosalie Arbella was appointed (2004). Like Justice Nadon she had a specialized record, but hers was as a very active, outspoken advocate for "social justice," while his is as a specialist in maritime and insurance law. But Justice Arbella was a Chrétien appointment and the Laurentian consensus approved, highly, of M. Chrétien. In fact, the Laurentian consensus only disapproves of Prime Minister Harper because he, unlike King, St Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau, Turner, Mulroney, Chrétien and Martin, is not an acolyte, he doesn't keep the Central Canadian faith. Worse, he, PM Harper, is trying to split the Central Canadian power base and unite suburban and rural Ontario (90± of 121 seats) with the prairies and suburban and rural BC.
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
And the Supremes reject Justice Nadon for what appear, to me, to be good and valid reasons.
This should be a lesson to all prime ministers.
This should be a lesson to all prime ministers.
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
Although I don't expect that he will, I hope Prime Minister Harper will learn that he cannot challenge the courts. Our, Westminster, system is finely tuned ... we have managed, over 800ish years, to adapt an absolute monarchy to constraints imposed by a parliament and adjudged by independent courts. That fine tuning was, in the main, done without too much being written down ~ although the federal states (and there are a lot of them) that use the Westminster system need to define many things, including divisions of powers.
I know a lot of people favour the Conservatives' "law and order," or "tough on crime" agenda. I do not. I think it is mean spirited and I suspect that its only purpose is to appease people I regard as borderline stupid. The worst part of it is trying to constrain an independent judiciary. I strongly object to attempts to interfere with sentencing: judges, not politicians, are qualified to set punishments. Sometimes I am dismayed by the sentences awarded but I console myself with knowledge that judges avail themselves of expert advice and that they have much more experience than I.
I would like to see fewer, not more, prisons and fewer people in them, especially young people. I think Quebec and Europe lead the rest of North America in successful youth justice. I believe some people need harsh, very harsh, punishment; I believe that many people, usually the same as are in need of harsh punishment, are incorrigible and need to be locked away for very, very long times, too. But some (many?) (most?) offenders can be rehabilitated and they need different care and custody ... and training. I belive that corporal punishment, administered in public, has a role, too ... but almost nobody agrees with me on that.
I know a lot of people favour the Conservatives' "law and order," or "tough on crime" agenda. I do not. I think it is mean spirited and I suspect that its only purpose is to appease people I regard as borderline stupid. The worst part of it is trying to constrain an independent judiciary. I strongly object to attempts to interfere with sentencing: judges, not politicians, are qualified to set punishments. Sometimes I am dismayed by the sentences awarded but I console myself with knowledge that judges avail themselves of expert advice and that they have much more experience than I.
I would like to see fewer, not more, prisons and fewer people in them, especially young people. I think Quebec and Europe lead the rest of North America in successful youth justice. I believe some people need harsh, very harsh, punishment; I believe that many people, usually the same as are in need of harsh punishment, are incorrigible and need to be locked away for very, very long times, too. But some (many?) (most?) offenders can be rehabilitated and they need different care and custody ... and training. I belive that corporal punishment, administered in public, has a role, too ... but almost nobody agrees with me on that.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,471
- Points
- 1,040
Ordinarily, politicians always set the punishments and judges decide within the range set. "Tough on crime" sentencing policy is just a backlash against occasional "weak on crime" sentencing implementation. The perceptions that exist have nothing to do with anyone being borderline stupid; they all depend on what is emphasized in media.
There do exist judges who let their personal beliefs shade their sentencing decisions too much, and from time to time an egregious sentence gets a lot of publicity. What results is a specific instance of a general principle: if the people who are supposed to be intelligent, educated, and in charge fail to suppress their own bullsh!t instincts for a prolonged period of time, citizens will tire and will support a political party which applies a broad, blunt solution. Any group with widespread discretion founded on public trust is always at risk of having discretion removed if they fail to adequately police themselves. The strictest and harshest critic of any judge who steps outside the lines should be every other judge.
There do exist judges who let their personal beliefs shade their sentencing decisions too much, and from time to time an egregious sentence gets a lot of publicity. What results is a specific instance of a general principle: if the people who are supposed to be intelligent, educated, and in charge fail to suppress their own bullsh!t instincts for a prolonged period of time, citizens will tire and will support a political party which applies a broad, blunt solution. Any group with widespread discretion founded on public trust is always at risk of having discretion removed if they fail to adequately police themselves. The strictest and harshest critic of any judge who steps outside the lines should be every other judge.
E.R. Campbell said:
Hmm. I wonder if that we're given as an option to jail or fines if people would opt for that. 6 months in jail or 12 lashes on Elgin street. Justice gets meted, the system is alleviated of having to feed and house someone and would be expedient. Also it isn't really forced since the person would select his punishment. Would make for a good deterrent as well...
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
E.R. Campbell said:
Despite my often stated objections to some, even most of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda,* I do support the Fair Elections initiative.
The Globe and Mail editorialized its opposition to the Act. In fairnes, they do make some good points. But: the Globe and Mail also gave Pierre Poilievre, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, space to rebut and, in my opinion, he did so most effectively.
I am sure there are some provisions of the bill that will be problematical, but, on the key points: voter ID, public information (as opposed to public relations) and enforcement, the government, not the media and the Laurentian Elites is on the side of the angels.
_____
* Leaving a few Army.ca members to wonder if I really am a Conservative and why I support the party
- Reaction score
- 2,621
- Points
- 940
Oh, we occasionally wonder some things about you, but that isn't one of them.E.R. Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
Journeyman said:Oh, we occasionally wonder some things about you, but that isn't one of them.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,471
- Points
- 1,040
The best part of "Fair Elections" is that it tends to separate education/encouragement from enforcement. If people involved in the former get caught with their thumbs on the scale, it is better if the people involved in the latter are not part of the same family.
- Reaction score
- 4,600
- Points
- 1,160
Michael Bliss, a historian worthy of respect, reminds Prime Minister Harper that "all politics is local," as former US House Speaker 'Tip' O'Neil quipped, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/while-the-prime-minister-travelled-ottawa-burned/article17642490/#dashboard/follows/
I think Prof Bliss is a bit hyperbolic in saying, e.g. "Pierre Poilievre [is] a political lightweight with no credibility outside of the most extreme partisan circles" or that the PM is "grandstanding in Ukraine, junketing in Israel, or hobnobbing at pointless G8 meetings" but, hyperbole aside, he makes a very valid point: The Conservatives' support is eroding, for a whole host of reasons, it hasn't eroded beyond recovery but it is the leader's job to maintain, burnish and enhance the party's political position, and, while being seen as an effective international statesman will help a bit, elections must be won at home.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/while-the-prime-minister-travelled-ottawa-burned/article17642490/#dashboard/follows/
While the Prime Minister travelled Ottawa burned
MICHAEL BLISS
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Mar. 25 2014
It’s time that the Prime Minister of Canada realized the pressing need to spend more time at home tending the Canadian garden. His tendency to neglect key domestic files while being often out of the country is obviously hurting his government and the Conservative Party.
It was perfectly symbolic that the Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling on the Marc Nadon appointment should have come when Stephen Harper was on a flight to Ukraine. At key stages in the developing Senate scandal, reporters have had to pester him in New York and Peru for comment. The Prime Minister always looks happier abroad than in Ottawa. Whether or not Mr. Harper is travelling more than his predecessors, it is rapidly becoming clear that he is too inattentive to business in Canada.
The image of Stephen Harper as a control freak pulling every political string in his government has never been particularly accurate. As any leader must, Mr. Harper delegates. His problem is that he is delegating important domestic political issues to a fault, leaving matters to staffers and ministers who are not up to their jobs.
That proved spectacularly true with the staff of the Prime Minister’s Office in its handling of the Senate mess. Mr. Harper compounded this failure of competence and integrity by not cleaning house or offering a serious explanation to Canadians. Instead he forced a hapless parliamentary secretary to virtually destroy a career with comical evasion and repetition.
In recent weeks it’s also become clear – but it has been no surprise – that the government’s attempt to reform our electoral legislation has been bungled in both drafting and defence by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, Pierre Poilievre, a political lightweight with no credibility outside of the most extreme partisan circles. So far, our too-often-absent Prime Minister has given Mr. Poilievre neither back-up nor the back of his hand, even as the government’s reputation for electoral integrity continues to erode.
Now we have an enormously serious blow to the government because of an unprecedented botching of the Prime Minister’s latest Supreme Court appointment. There will be an intense postmortem of this mess, but it is striking that once again the man who made the appointment is not present to explain himself and show us the future.
Of course all leaders are occasionally victimized by bad timing. But Mr. Harper’s foreign travel seems to represent a deliberate agenda. He may particularly enjoy the company of global movers and shakers; he may feel he is playing an important role on the world stage; he may think his foreign policies play well with voters at home. His penchant for globetrotting is reminiscent of his great Conservative predecessor, Sir Robert Borden, who was often abroad in 1917-1919 working on issues of war and peace. Borden had never much liked the muck of domestic politics.
But Borden had much more justification for being at, say, the Paris Peace Conference, than Mr. Harper has for grandstanding in Ukraine, junketing in Israel, or hobnobbing at pointless G8 meetings. And notwithstanding Borden’s real statesmanship abroad, his government and his party eventually paid a huge price in Canada when incompetent lieutenants, such as the arch-partisan Arthur Meighen, alienated one domestic constituency after another.
It took about a third of a century for Canadian conservatism to recover from Borden’s inattention in his final years as leader. As the Conservative Party continues to trail in the polls, it’s surely time to wonder whether the verdict of history on Stephen Harper may be that after 2011 he was too often wandering around the world – courting foreign glory Canada does not have – when he should have been at home minding his business, and ours.
Michael Bliss is a historian, author and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto.
I think Prof Bliss is a bit hyperbolic in saying, e.g. "Pierre Poilievre [is] a political lightweight with no credibility outside of the most extreme partisan circles" or that the PM is "grandstanding in Ukraine, junketing in Israel, or hobnobbing at pointless G8 meetings" but, hyperbole aside, he makes a very valid point: The Conservatives' support is eroding, for a whole host of reasons, it hasn't eroded beyond recovery but it is the leader's job to maintain, burnish and enhance the party's political position, and, while being seen as an effective international statesman will help a bit, elections must be won at home.
- Status
Similar threads
