Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Daily Digest June 18, 2008



Frequent flyer points

Let's have a bill in the fall

The worthy goal of buying local
The success of any local purchasing program boils down to a partnership between producers and consumers.

Health and fitness inextricably linked

Put up or shut up

Being an informed citizen

Ireland's No vote could have coattail effect

The word on literacy

Checking police power

A community's anger

Taliban strikes a blow

Let ombudsman look at hospitals

The expenses scam

Two who should explain

No need to avoid McCain in Ottawa

Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

Minister's ex-girlfriend plays it safe

Mission won't end quickly

A clear smoke signal

Nuclear path not without pitfalls

Afghan mission takes a serious turn

Tax pollution not income

Life, death and doctors

One law for all

Timely proposal by Bruce Power food for thought

An important choice
The Saskatchewan government is right to offer the vaccination protecting girls from the human pappilomavirus (HPV), but it has given parents the responsibility of making the choice.

OECD is right and wrong

Due pay for foreign workers

Advantage shaky

Money isn't everything

'Win-win' Copyright Act still has plenty of losers

Let's not blow a good idea

Carrying risk too far


Appalling living conditions a form of passive ethnic cleansing

A new beginning
Canada has made a significant gesture of respect for the native place in the national fabric, and perhaps finally set us on the path of reconciliation

The worst choice, except for all the others
Schools on first nations reserves weren't up to the task then, and they may not be now

$579 million shuffled from native projects

City of Kandahar is key that unlocks Afghanistan
Conquering armies have taken Kandahar-Kabul route since the time of Alexander the Great

36 Taliban killed as Afghan, Canadian troops clear insurgent zone

'More work to be done' as NATO takes on Taliban

Global Video: Air strike kills Taliban fighters

Graphic: Battle in the Arghandab

Troops regain two villages seized by Taliban

A prison break waiting to happen\
Almost every rule of successful counterinsurgency is running up against Afghan realities.

Canadian troops hunt Taliban
VIDEO: Canadian forces root out Taliban
Old-Line Taliban Commander Is Face of Rising Afghan Threat
The New York Times (06/18/2008)
Audit cites lack of planning for Afghan security
The Associated Press (06/18/2008)
Saving Parwez Kambakhsh
IWPR (06/18/2008)
The Youngest Terrorists
CBS News (06/18/2008)
Army arrests 10 'Talib policemen'
Quqnoos (06/18/2008)
Defence officials warned of weak walls at Afghan prison 2 years ago
The Canadian Press (06/18/2008)
The Taliban Are Back. What Now?
Slate (06/18/2008)
Pakistani Journalist Criticizes Nation Building In South-Central Asia
RFE/RL (06/18/2008)

Soldiers' duty to step in: Hillier

Canadian soldiers' high-tech gear helps in battle

Towards permanent joint patrols

NAFTA costs jobs, creates pollution

Khadr set to appear before judge on war charges

Khadr report tabled in Ottawa

Khadr must be kept out, Tories insist

Don't fail twice in Iraq

UN's Arbour opposes 'taboos' at Human Rights Council

African impatience with Mugabe grows

France to rejoin NATO's military command

Canada short 2,500 nurses a year: study

Ontario won't set minimums for long-term care hours

Millions of Canadians lack family doctor

Mounties vow action on call to rein in taser use

Therapeutics Initiative a boon to B.C. citizens
Report critical of made-in-B.C. program would hand agenda to 'Big Pharma'

Sask. Party driving nuclear option

Ontario falls short on French services, commissioner says

McGuinty snuffs demand for expanded oversight

With two proposed reactors, Saskatchewan joins Ontario in nuclear renaissance

Most oppose B.C. carbon tax

Politique | Projet de loi C-10 Politics | Bill C-10
Les sénateurs prêts à faire tomber le gouvernement Senators ready to bring down the government

Senate to amend controversial Bill C10

Tories want to keep Khadr away from 'extremist' family

Debate heats up over carbon-tax proposals
Stephane Dion's carbon tax proposal is set to be released Thursday morning

Layton faces caucus revolt over position on 'Durban 2'

Public Works Minister awash in flood of donations

No security concerns flagged

Green party unveils national carbon tax plan with gas levy

Liberal MPs urge review of party's carbon tax plan
Tories claim it shows split within Dion's caucus

Tories dodge McCain's Ottawa visit
Prime Minister will be out of town during candidate's historic visit

Couillard affair shows security clearances need review

Following Alberta's lead

Harper's failure to woo women could hurt him at the polls
The gender gap in support for the Tories has widened since they took power

Debate heats up over carbon-tax proposals

Dion's climate-change plan includes large income-tax cuts

Ground Bill C-7: Letting airlines rule over passenger safety is a really bad idea

Dion bets big on carbon tax

Dion could anger Liberal premiers

Terror backers monitored to aid Forces: Day

So what's in the new copyright bill?

Oil: Canada will be present at the meeting in Jeddah

Rights body to examine hate on Internet
'It's clear the public want to have the debate,' commissioner says

Government needs to focus on rural areas: Senate report

RCMP may probe Couillard affair

Tighter security checks in hands of MPs, police say

Anti-spanking bill passes through Senate

Catastrophe wouldn't befall Canada if it complied with Kyoto: critics

Failing to frighten adult masses to submission, global warming alarmists become bogeymen of children

World better equipped to fight flu, UN says

RCMP mole's testimony aids Crown and defence

Witness talks of `fantasy' not terror

Crown challenges own witness at terror trial

Food crisis is inevitable here if we aren't prepared for worst

How to kill the auto industry

Why the term secular should be dropped as misleading

When intelligence information contains none

Testing a president

The Mark Steyn case is the elephant in the Canadian arts community's room

Civil liberties coalition cries foul on first anniversary of no-fly list

La taxe sur le carbone du PLC entraînera des baisses d'impôts de 10 pour cent

Ottawa investit 100 millions $ dans la recherche contre le cancer

Une substance cancérigène a brûlé lors de l'incendie du NCSM Chicoutimi

Le projet de loi sur Kelowna est en vigueur mais ne sera pas appliqué

Le gouvernement conservateur dit que Louise Arbour est une honte

Quatre millions de Canadiens sont sans médecin de famille

Le Parti vert propose une taxe sur le carbone élevée dans son nouveau plan

Un projet de loi contre la fessée, adopté au Sénat, est soumis aux Communes

La GRC s'en tient à sa première version devant le comité de la sécurité publique

Des militants poursuivent Ottawa pour non-respect du protocole de Kyoto

Les sénateurs libéraux veulent amender le projet de loi sur la censure

Taser: la GRC accepte les recommandations de la Commission des plaintes

14 milliards de carbodollars pour baisser les impôts

Le Danemark veut augmenter le nombre de ses soldats en Afghanistan

Pétrole: le Canada sera présent à la réunion de Djeddah

Québec va garantir l'emploi des réservistes qui servent en Afghanistan

Le sénateur-ministre a récolté près d'un demi-million en un an

Véhicule à basse vitesse - L'auto électrique en marche arrière

Vers des patrouilles conjointes permanentes

Torture 101

Guerre en Afghanistan
La contre-attaque est lancée

Projet de loi C-10
Les sénateurs prêts à faire tomber le gouvernement

La Teoria Conspiratoria


The police officials all American and Canadian evoke fears of terrorist attacks to justify a permanent nature to experience.

Once again an article in the French language
not seen in the English press to this point.    

It may or may not disturb, or irritate or make
you feel more secure joint operations have  
been taking place with plans to have them   

Those who "evoke fears of terrorists" to justify
actions are playing on fear, with love and rage
the three primordial emotions.                        

The British have had a hundred deaths among
their forces in Afghanistan.                             

For some I thought it would be interesting to 
read the COMMENTS made in reaction to an 
opinion article posted on what is self styled as

Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website       


Afghanistan is worth a long, hard fight

The Taliban are getting shredded in Afghanistan. Not only are they dying in droves, their unique blend of ineptitude and vicious fanaticism has turned the common Afghans against them. Afghanistan has a chance, because of the British Army.

Which is why I find the tone of this article galling. It's all so hushed, so pleading, so hand-wringing.

Combat deaths in Afghanistan have been extraordinarily low, and our successes high. This defeatist, bed-wetting tone does the Telegraph no credit.
Posted by Toby Gettins on June 18, 2008 10:17 PM
Report this comment

Afghanistan is not worth one single drop of British blood and that old bull, they will come here is just the politics of fear let them come then we fight!
With Fabians in our parliament you'd do better an essay that would really wake the people up to the evil going on in this country.
How anyone would trust any war that involved the Fabian scum that stalks westminster i have no idea at all.
To me the wars started these last few years are genocide of Britians youth, in Yugoslavia NATO worked hand in hand with islamic terror groups now they change sides.
Keep the army away from the UK while Fabians destroy our country bet they won't be brought back to do the re-construction of our country.
Fabians feed off capitalism excrete communism as we now see the Fascism developing here, but hey..lets bomb another nation after all we've a few troops left.
How about Germany or some European state again?
Westminster might bring a few cheers.
Posted by veronica on June 18, 2008 9:36 PM
Report this comment

If we leave, we lose.
Posted by F. and U. Adenufyet on June 18, 2008 9:27 PM
Report this comment

Whose sacrifice is it? Whose sacrifice are we talking about? Your sacrifice? My sacrifice?

We are talking about the more than a hundred that have already died and I do not know how many more have had their limbs chopped and how many have become totally disabled.

We must also include the ones who are going to die or are going to become disabled in the near future. And what about their families?
Posted by Carlos Cortiglia on June 18, 2008 9:02 PM
Report this comment

OK Sean; off you go and fight. This smacks of the time worn Politics of Fear that Bush and Co spew. Imagine a fleet of canoes paddled by a bunch of Afghanis coming at us across the Channel. Get real.
The answer is to get out and develop alternate sources of energy so that we are not in Iraq, Saudi Arabia or any other place where our presence is mainly to take advantage of or control oil. when there's no oil left, we will leave anyway
Posted by Gerald on June 18, 2008 7:47 PM
Report this comment

Russia had over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for 10 years and could not win the war. Britain also tried back in the 1800's without success. Afghanistan is not worth the life of a single British soldier. Nor is Iraq.
Posted by Stuart Smith on June 18, 2008 7:45 PM
Report this comment

The primary objective in invading Afghanistan was to stop Al Quaeda carrying out a terrorist war by destroying their training bases at source. Whilst this objective has been reached in most of Afghanistan the Taliban have made it difficult in the mountainous regions.

The mistake NATO is making is in trying to democratise a country which is tribal and steeped in the traditions of a Pashtun lifestyle. Our soldiers are dying because of the failure of our politicians to recognise that the Pashtun people are very proud and have more in common with the Taliban than George Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. The best way to counter the Taliban is to use the indigenous Pashtun population who have the knowledge to beat them. This means that you must respect the Pashtun tribal communities and their way of life and not try to change them immediately through democratisation. Using local tribal chiefs and their armed men to oust Taliban fighters would reduce NATO casualties and enable a federal government in Kabul to rule through regional tribal chiefs in the Afghan provinces.

For Gordon Brown to send additional troops to train the Afghan Army is non-sensical. The Pashtun know very well how to fight and their guerrilla tactics are far more useful in Afghanistan than conventional warfare.

So the answer is NO, it is not worth a long arduous campaign when there are far better and more intelligent strategies to use. Unfortunately Gordon Brown is gutless and not prepared to admit the error of his ways, therefore unnecessarily condemning more of our brave young men to death.
Posted by The Oracle on June 18, 2008 7:45 PM
Report this comment

i feel we have the best armed forces in the world we do not have the best paid or equipt but what we do have is heart and bravery second to no other nation. As our forces are spread more thinly across the world and in its different roles it makes training so much more difficult these people deserve a wage increase unlike the tanker drivers and european MPs for whom saw an opportunity to bleed this country dry for greed nothing more than disgusting when our brave men and women are putting their lives at risk to keep this country a safer place
Posted by john on June 18, 2008 7:25 PM
Report this comment

This war has NOTHING to do with British interests. If the only reason we should be prepared to lose hundreds more British soldiers over many years, is that it is better to fight muslim terrorists in Afghanistan than in Britain, then bring our troops home, and deport all likely Muslim terrorists from this country.
Posted by I Stewart on June 18, 2008 7:12 PM
Report this comment

"It seems that his fears are now being born out" - surely you mean "borne" out. Really! The standard of spelling in this paper is becoming quite comprehensive school standard!

And, we don`t "fight our enemies on British soil", we give them state benefits and legal aid viz. Abu Hamza and Abu Quatada to name but two.

If we really wanted to protect the UK, we would seal our borders against the likes of the two gentlemen mentioned and make more use of deportation.

I see little point in fighting an unwinnable war thousands of miles away when we allow known terrorists not only to live here but to be paid for the privilege.
Posted by Rick O`Shea on June 18, 2008 7:08 PM
Report this comment

There is no prospect of a relative handful of British troops prevailing in Afghanistan - time is on the Taliban's side for they are not going to go anywhere. A 10 or 20 year struggle is nothing for them, they have a large pool of manpower to draw upon over the Pakstan border. We cannot sustain this drip drip drip of pointless casualties and we have no reserves of men or equipment- this is a murderous, shameful folly. In any event the British presence in Afghanistan winds up Islamists and they have training camps in Waziristan. We should also consider the damage these crass wars do to the army, notably recruitment and retention. Typical of the Telegraph to be banging this stupid drum, this Imperial spasm
Posted by Roger Clark on June 18, 2008 6:50 PM
Report this comment

If our dopey politicians and and pathetic immigration service were anything like competent, Afghanistan and anywhere else could become a rogue state and so what.. The next rogue states will be African.
Meanwhile the UN/EU/UK gravy trains trundle on.
Posted by michael.murphy on June 18, 2008 6:47 PM
Report this comment

Our most implacable enemies and those who are the greatest threat to the British people are the current New Labour kleptofascists. They have killed democracy in this country and I'm afraid that we will one day be fighting them on British soil. The current war in Afghanistan is a distraction from the war that needs to be won against the government and its EU allies.
Posted by Marion Morrison on June 18, 2008 6:47 PM
Report this comment

Yes. It is better to fight them there. It's even better to win there. But 30 - 50 years sounds like stalemate not victory. What'll happen during that time? Impossible to say. So we've committed ourselves to the unforseeable, the unpredictable and the almost endless. Afghan Governments will fall and rise - perhaps. Allied Governments will be voted in and out; and their economies will fluctuate along with the stomach to pay for a ceaseless conflict. After all, aren't we already hearing murmured complaints of underfunding and dithering over money? And what of the poppy harvest? Presently, it's thriving. Opium and more opium. And Pakistan? Will it persist in harbouring the Taliban? The answer is that it probably will for as long as the brand of islam that drives that group, continues in Pakistan's unruly tribal areas where this ideology- the so called word of Al'Lah - cannot effectively be challenged. All this doesn't sound like triumph to me. Indeed, it doesn't even sound like a plan. There are too many uncertainties for planning.
Perhaps the answer is to go in hard and withdraw: poised to go in again. And continue until some sort of lesson is driven home. In and out, clean. Is this worse - more fruitless - that artificially and for ever propping up a perhaps unreliable regime that can hardly travel beyond its capital? Are we seriously contemplating 30 - 50 years of this? And all because a relative handful of madmen - some of whom we actually, in our utter foolishness, protect and accommodate - have sworn to destroy us for the sake of a backward creed?
Is it not this bellicose belief that needs fighting? Is it not at home where we should start?
Posted by sebastian on June 18, 2008 6:45 PM
Report this comment

we need more personnel.

We have 100,000 virtually un-emplayable 18 - 22 years olds in this country destined for a life on Benefits and petty crime.

Why not offer them a job in the army, and send them South. No more benefits if you refuse the job.

Historically these young guys, when bereft of the familiar cushions in their lives, and stuck between a rock and a hard place, - have shown themselves, - time and time again - to be capable of being molded in to excellent infantry.

Much better to spend 30 billion a year on the armed forces, - than spend 30 billion a year on Job Seeker's (HA _ HA - HA... ) allowance..

And is there not a very simplt solution to the opium problem?? Let them grow as much as they want....... its the only way they have of making any money after all. BUT - on condition that they sell all of it to West, - where it will be used to create honest, legal, and valuable medicines.

Simple really ......

Posted by John Porter on June 18, 2008 6:30 PM
Report this comment

I thought that the UK was no longer 'doing' colonialism - it goes not seem to be appropriate to a socialist government.
Posted by ascetic on June 18, 2008 6:24 PM
Report this comment

Whose sacrifice? Not your son's or daughter's.

Let's stop kidding ourselves we can do any good in these places.

Until people there truly want to work it out and are prepared to work with us why should we send our young people to be killed?

Not everyone wants freedom and democracy. Until we accept that we are being naive and irresponsible.

Before you start whining that some in the country do want it let me remind you that rights and freedoms were not won in the west by outside interference but by people within demanding, and being willing to die, for them. When that is the case these countries will change.

We are creating more victims and a world where the west is supposed to pick up all the pieces, provide refuge for the displaced and show respect for the ridiculous.

We should stop apologising for our achievements, kow-towing to the bullying tactics of the less evolved and start showing a bit of self respect and respect for the ability of others to fight their own battles.

Posted by Alison on June 18, 2008 6:03 PM
Report this comment

Oh and another thing - why should our enemies be fought in Afghanistan and not here? So it's better for innocent Afghanis to die rather than British? Shame upon you Mr Rayment. Just think for a moment about what you have actually said.
Posted by Jessica on June 18, 2008 5:59 PM
Report this comment

Why does the presence of NATO troops prevent the Taliban from planning and training terrorists for another 9/11 event, right now? Why do they have to leave Afghanistan for this to happen?
The danger remains whether NATO is there or not.Surely we are winning the battle because there hasn't been another 9/11 in the USA.
Posted by Christian on June 18, 2008 5:58 PM
Report this comment

Easy for you to say, chum. It's not your son/daughter in the frame. How will we know when we've won anyway? So we have to stay there for 30-50 years - then what? That idea alone shows that this is a war that can't be won. It is at best a holding operation. Better surely to adjust our global foreign policy and stop acting like arrogant fools.
Posted by Jessica on June 18, 2008 5:54 PM
Report this comment

The Afghanis are not a natural enemy of Britain. The last sentence of the article parrots the tired American motif of "fight them over there so we don't have to here". This is glib nonsense.
Al-Qaeda is a response to American hegemony over the Middle East. It has no real desire let alone the means, to "destroy our freedoms" or subjugate us to a new caliphate. They want the Western militaries out of their lands, as we would they, if the situation was reversed. The Taliban are not desirable its true, but they had no designs on Britain until we hitched our wagon to American imperialism.

It should be noted that the one significant terrorist attack in the UK (7/7) was the work of UK people not Afgahnis, Taliban or Osama himself!

We are creating enemies by being on the wrong side of a sea change in history.
Posted by Harkadahl on June 18, 2008 5:50 PM
Report this comment

Yes, this is all true, but It's unacceptable that UK
forces are operating with so few helicopters. If
the PM ploughed a fraction of the money that he
ploughed into saving his own skin recently into
ensuring that the skins of UK forces are as
protected as possible, then the Taliban terrorists
would not be celebrating having killed yet four
more UK soldiers. MORE helicopters are needed
NOW. And the French, Germans, Spanish &
Italians need to be told to get their act together.
(Their cities are being made safer too by the
sacrifice of US, UK & Canadian forces.) Sarkozy
should put his troops where his mouth his and
the PM should tell him to do so in public. Also,
do these IEDs have Syrian or Iranian origins?
Surely it's time this proxy war with Iran came to a
head courtesy of an Israeli-US airstrike?
Andrew, Dublin
Posted by Andrew on June 18, 2008 5:50 PM
Report this comment

drive them out of afghanistan and they move to another istan. the key is not to give them a reason to attack britain. leave them to hole up in their desert kingdom and then drop latge bombs from unattributable planes on them
Posted by Dave on June 18, 2008 5:36 PM
Report this comment

It is becoming clear that Blair sent the Armed Forces into Aghanistan and Iraq not to establish democracy in those countries, but to get them out of the way while he went about destroying democracy in this country.His friend "W" and Bush senior are major movers and shakers in the establishment of a New World Order in which the league of International Communists and Fascists and a large gang of Industrial and Commercial Monopolists act as unopposed, uncontrolled and unaccountable "leaders", and the rest of us are reduced to servitude.
Posted by David, Oxford on June 18, 2008 5:31 PM
Report this comment

Well yes but couldn't we do it with satellites and by dropping lots of explosives on training camps or other targets when required?? All this because we do not have the legal potency to chuck out of the country those who seek to abuse the gift of being here. It is a gift. Many who would like to be here would not abuse it so why are we not revoking the citizenship of those who do abuse it? In the USA there are green cards, there is no instant citizenship, and if any member of the family steps out of line out you all go. Our weak laws, the EU, and our weak judges are causing us to have to engage abroad. We could certainly start by chucking out Abu Q and all his extended benefit sucking ,legal aid sucking, family. Mind you there are such risks to his children that perhaps we could take them into care.
One way or another we can't be "nice" about this. Those screaming about human rights are calling for carpet bombing. A British presence unsupported by the EU or enough by NATO is not something we should have to do. Doing nothing is not an option because as we have seen tragically for our soldiers and for civilians in Bagdhad, there are scumbags out there. Even if we cowered at home and did nothing there would still be envious murderous creeps wanting to kill to big themselves up.
Posted by Max on June 18, 2008 5:28 PM
Report this comment

I agree, very reluctantly, with Mr. Rayment's conclusion that the British Army should stay and fight it out in Afghanistan. We should not be there, but we are. Our fantastic soldiers were sent there merely because of Bliar's ego and Calamity Broon's electoral ambitions - a good war to replace the bad one in Iraq. Both of them should be forced to spend an hour by each and every coffin of the better men whose deaths they are responsible for.

However, we are where we are and a retreat with our tails between our legs would be disastrous, simply reinforcing the Jihadi's view that we are weak, decadent and ripe for destruction. We are at war with radical Islam, like it or not, and I think that we, the patriotic, common-sense majority of the British people should support our lads in Afghanistan and demand that the fight be take to our enemies, with the gloves taken off. I would like to think that moderate British Muslims would support ths, but if not, we should start demanding greater loyalty from them. It's a mess, no doubt, and one of our own making - and all we can do is pray that something turns up, as the current political establishment most certainly does not have the cojones for the fight. God help us!
Posted by Tommy Armstrong on June 18, 2008 5:25 PM
Report this comment

A war is always worth it, to those who dont have to fight in it
pete cornwall
Posted by peter taylor on June 18, 2008 5:22 PM
Report this comment

I don't understand what we gain even if we do 'win' this war,
As for 're' construction of the place, why on earth are we supposed to be interested? Use the money in England. Just bring the boys home! And control our borders. A few maniac Al-Quaeda loons will keep trying to attack us anyway, win or lose this war. We can handle them; better if our soldiers were alive and in the UK, and had the funds wasted in this campaign.
Posted by Robert Sebag-Montefiore on June 18, 2008 5:12 PM
Report this comment

"Isn't it better that we fight our enemies in Afghanistan rather than on British soil?"

No it isn't.

You fight on your own ground, of your own choosing, with short lines of supply and communications. Give the disadvantages to the enemy.
Posted by Steve H on June 18, 2008 5:08 PM
Report this comment

I see you have updated the artical, perhaps because of the unsympathetic comments.
What are we doing in Afghanistan, if it's drugs,then the drug addicts in this country are supporting the Taliban and from what I have read some soldiers are drug addicts so supporting the Taliban.
It's all right for us but it wasn't all right for the Russians.
Total Hypocrisey.
Unfortunately for the government, we are better educated to-day.
Posted by Royston Amphlett on June 18, 2008 5:04 PM
Report this comment

If Sean Rayment is a serving British soldier, or if he has ever been one, then he is entitled to make this comment.

If not, it is not just so much twaddle from a hack; it is also an insult to HM Forces.
Posted by David Sbort on June 18, 2008 4:45 PM
Report this comment

Maybe it would be better for some of New Labour's Ministers to do some Military training, put on a uniform, take a gun and man the front line. Instead of pontificating about things from the safety of London. There is only one MP that I know of who as well as being a Conservative MP, is also a TA Soldier who has done a tour of Afghanistan. How ever much our politicians applaud what the Military is doing, 'Being there' is a far better thing than being an 'Armchair General' at a distance. I say this as an Ex-Regular soldier.
Posted by B Clark on June 18, 2008 4:38 PM
Report this comment

Sean, you are as bad as this government.

Neither you, nor they have learnt from history.

We never have, nor, will ever win in Afghanistan, and it is pointless keeping our brave Troops there.

Let the government stop poking its nose into other areas of the world, and concentrate on returning our Freedom of Speech, Movement and Democratic rights, which first Bliar & Brown et al in parliament, have removed.
Posted by Geraldine on June 18, 2008 4:36 PM