Why Won’t You Appear Before The National Citizens Inquiry?  

/ brianpeckford

People are asking . Many missed my earlier January explanation .

It has to do with honesty —ethics , conflict of interest. Ironically what the Inquiry was suppose to entail. 

So—-

Question : 

Why won’t you appear before the National Citizens Inquiry , especially given you were one of the first to call for it” 

Answer: 

Because the Inquiry broke its own rules . It was suppose to be independent , says so on its website . But the Inquiry’s spokesman and one of the Directors of the non profit corporation under which the Inquiry is legally established , Hon. Preston Manning , broke that rule . He took a paid position with another inquiry ( and a Government one at that) and stayed on with the NCI supported by the majority of the support group , the group ( whose members are still not identified on their website)being those that were setting up the Inquiry . 

This becomes even more bewildering when one considers that the support group supported my earlier resignation because of statements I had made that were anti government and therefore it could be construed that the Inquiry was not independent. No paid other job, just that my statements could be viewed as undermining the credibility of the Inquiry and I voluntarily stepped aside. 

For me, the end does not justify the means .

And honesty is not only the best policy—it’s the only policy!!

The tragic irony of it all————-Our country cannot begin to repair and gain back some semblance of integrity and democracy if we condone ethics violation and conflict of interest in the very inquiry that was suppose to investigate such failings.

The opening words of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms are—‘Whereas this Country is founded on the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: ‘ 

The values inherent in these principles seem forgotten .

Hon. A. Brian Peckford P.C.

13 thoughts on “Why Won’t You Appear Before The National Citizens Inquiry?  ”

  1. Señor Peckford,

    I’ve often suggested that an any inquiry, let’s say an inquiry on rape is not to be found credible, if led by those who are guilt off or in any way support or appear to support rape. It matters not the actual facts at this juncture, it is the appearance that will kill one’s credibility.

    An inquiry without credibility will always be suspect and not trusted, by the public, and it provides tons of ammunition to be used by its adversaries.

    It is my view that any person who genuinely believes in the inquiry would recuse themselves under any circumstance that brings into question their potential bias, conflict-of-interest, or lack of objectivity.

    Also and again, we appear to have reached a juncture in our Western World where credibility is a “foreign term”; where leading by example is not valued, nor expected and demanded; where the appearance of Justice should be as important as Justice but it isn’t; where honour and integrity are expected and demanded; where values, ethics, morals and principles are not given the consideration they must and should be given.

    Sadly, the NCI has failed everyone of those expectations and why I have not donate a penny to the inquiry. However, that certainly wasn’t my intent when the NCI was being established, actually, I was a fervent supporter only to be disappointed by a number of leading people of the NCI who appear to have no idea, or don’t care, about a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest!! Sad, enough said!!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  2. Your explanation has always been simple, straightforward and honest, somethings that are sadly missing in too many things today. We supported the NCI from it’s outset but quickly withdrew that support when Mr. Manning’s conflict of interest reared it’s ugly head. He truly should have withdrawn totally from one or the other.

    NCI has neither financial nor moral support from this household.

    Like

    Reply

  3. This is not a “real deal” inquiry as if you were premier ordering an official one and I am no fan of Preston Manning – but don’t you think there would be alot more good done if you took the opportunity to be heard by more people across Canada rather than absent yourself? More and more people are waking up and many are tuning into this. We are in a time of crisis and I think your powerful voice needs to be heard as far and wide as possible. Have you been in touch with former BC Premier Bill VanderZalm? Wouldn’t it be something if two former premiers testified? Maybe just maybe that would be enough to get an article written in the mainstream media — so far it is crickets.

    Like

    Reply

  4. I support the principled stance of the Honourable Premier. It is indeed pragmatism that has corrupted our society. The unprincipled stance against our growing welfare state Utopia. Modern “konservativz” want to be the “deer leederz” of our centrally planned society in the same way modern “liberalz” do.

    The power of the anti-morality of altruism (to prioritize the needs of others above those of our own) that necessitates policy (the use of govt force) to extract our sacrifices for the collective “greater good” as Jesus commands us to do. “Konservativz” and “Liberalz” have become false alternatives both believing they have the moral high ground by their altruist devotions as commanded by our religious traditions that the masses, whether sectarian or secular, obey and acquiesce to.

    Franco-German philosophy (spanning from the late 18th thru the 19th centuries) successfully severed the awareness/knowledge their used to be, about Aristotle’s influence to Christianity. An awareness Enlightenment thinkers (which includes American Founders) had. Christian deists were Christians (people who believed in universal principles of morality) who prioritized facts, logic, reason above mystical revelations.

    America’s Bill of Rights (largely emulated by Canada’s Charter) was based upon the Aristotelean morality of rational egoism (in contrast to the fundamentalist morality of Christian altruism). That the moral purpose of an individuals life was to protect, pursue, and realize any/all values essential to his own Health, Life, and Happiness. This in contrast to the altruist morality to renounce values for the sake of God and others. Govt buro-rats lust having the power of God, they practice it and do all that they can to not let go of their power-lust.

    There needs to be a promotion of ideas, promoted by persuasive people having authority in the realm of Individualist Constitutional Law. The idea of amending our Charter to secure its proper rank in our Constitution. To secure a proper separation of powers rendering all branches, especially the executive as servants, not masters (“Godz”).

    A proper preamble would be something along the lines “Whereas this Country is governed on the principles that recognize the supremacy of the Rights respecting individual Canadian and the rule of objective laws enacted to protect the Rights of Individual Canadians. “

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • Morality based on commandments is not objective but subjective; it is based on assertions issued by the alleged ruling consciousness; thus, whatever that consciousness commands—whether to love your neighbor or to beat your wife or to murder unbelievers—is “moral” simply because he said so. That is the very essence of subjectivity.

        Objective morality comes not from revelation, faith, or divine commandments—but from observation, logic, and the laws of nature (where the original American principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) actually originates.

        Like

  5. Whether you appear or not is your choice.
    However we have been following the inquiry. Every voice that adds to the story of government dysfunction or just how the Orwellian nature of response from governments helps us.

    Like

    Reply

    • Well the inquiry gets on with its job and thanks to it this man Roger Palmer has stepped up.
      He has provided some damn good insights that are real regardless of a few bones of contention
      Now Trudeau and his idea of arms length and integrity and conflict of interest is something to marvel at.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment