Response to Colvin's detainee testimony discourages honest reports, letter says
Twenty-three former ambassadors are speaking out against the Conservative government's attacks on the credibility of diplomat Richard Colvin, saying Ottawa's response to his Afghan detainee abuse testimony threatens to cast a chill over Canada's foreign service.
The ex-heads of Canadian diplomatic missions say in a letter released to the media that they're worried the treatment of Mr. Colvin will discourage diplomats from reporting frankly to Ottawa from their foreign postings.
...
Paul Durand, a former Canadian ambassador to the Organization of American States, to Chile and to Costa Rica, said the former ambassadors are speaking only on the way Mr. Colvin has been treated by the government - and especially Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who was Mr. Colvin's boss as foreign affairs minister.
"He savaged him in public, and ridiculed him. And that's not the way to treat a guy who's doing his job," Mr. Durand said.
Durand also points out, quite rightly, that Colvin isn't really a whistle-blower. He submitted his original affidavit in response to a subpoena from the MPCC. And he made his subsequent testimony before a parliamentary committee in response to a direct request from them. His reward for simply answering questions about his time in Afghanistan and his judgement on what he saw there has been ridicule from the highest levels of government. Not to mention from one corner of the punditocracy. I can see where that might influence the way other civil servants perform their duties.
Update:
Kady O'Malley has the text of the letter.
I don't think that Harper and his kind of conservative get the notion of public service. To them, civil servants may be useful, but only if they're onside politically; that a civil servant is supposed to be offering independent advice without fear or favour, that would be a notion they'd sneer at because they'd never do it themselves.
Democracy itself is a casino to Harper and his ilk. They figure that the point is to win, and if they can just do that, then the winner takes it all (and there's a lot they're planning on taking).
The very phrase "twenty-three former ambassadors" must cause daggers to start shooting out of Harper's cold little resent-filled eyes.
Wade through the comments to the G&M story and you'll find all of the CPC talking points covered.
* The 23 former ambassadors were Liberal appointees
* Nobody Cares
* Even if people do care, Martin Started it
* If you criticize a Conservative cabinet minister you are attacking "the troops"
* Adscam, Adscam, Adscam
* They are terrorist scumbags and deserve torture
* Even if they aren't terrorists they live in the same neighbourhood as terrorists and how are CF personnel supposed to know the difference?
* It's war and bad things happen. Suck it up.
Wait for it... Harper or Baird or some other blustering blowhard will attempt to assassinate the character of these 23 career diplomats. Diplomacy is for sissies, ain't it.
Well said, JimBobby - I thought the same thing as I read the story.
Lost now, but I recall an article about Joe Clark's short tenure as PM. One of the great problems he had was that after Trudeau and Pearson he felt the civil service had been politicized. It was only just before he left the job that he realized they were professionals and even if appointed by Liberals, their loyalty was to the (civil) service, not to any party.