Greg Weston is reporting that Canadian Louise Frechette is back in the crosshairs of the Oil-For-Food investigation.

According to an interim report of the Volcker inquiry, released in February, UN auditors began smelling something amiss early in the program — and ultimately produced a total of 55 audits of it.
But for almost four years, as the humanitarian scheme became riddled with kickbacks and mismanagement, the auditors were stifled by the program’s now-disgraced director, Benon Sevan.
Finally in frustration, the chief spending watchdog announced in late 2000 that future audits would be sent over Sevan’s head, directly to the UN Security Council.
This time, it was Frechette who intervened. The Volcker inquiry reports that Frechette personally telephoned the head of audits, “denying this proposal.”
“(The auditor) then abandoned the effort to report directly to the Security Council on (oil-for-food) related matters.”
The UN audits remained under wraps for another four years until the Volcker inquiry began making them public only weeks ago. (Frechette said recently she believed the audits “were a management tool to be used only by internal managers.”)
Frechette was Canada’s deputy minister of defence in 1997 when Jean Chretien’s government shut down the Somalia inquiry. She is also no stranger to the man heading the Volcker team of 75 investigators and forensic accountants.
Reid Morden is the former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
He was also Frechette’s boss in 1993, when she was a diplomat and he was deputy minister of Foreign Affairs.
In a wide-ranging interview with me yesterday, Morden said the inquiry has so far tried to follow the money from the sale of Iraqi oil and purchase of humanitarian aid.
“What we will do now is try to give an overall picture of the management, mismanagement and possible corruption within the program overall,” Morden said.
“And in that, we will be following up with Louise Frechette on whatever her role might have been or was not. “What we’ll try to focus on is … was the management structure appropriate and sufficient for a program of that size and complexity? And I think it is more on that side that we will be taking a look at her role.”

Call me suspicious, but considering the incestuous relationships of the characters involved, I wonder how much of this would have been “focused on” without Norm Coleman’s gun at their back.

LifeSite News:

A supporter of same-sex marriage is using the human rights process to take away Bishop Frederick Henry’s right to freedom of religion and free speech.� Despite the Catholic Church’s established role in preparing men and women for marriage and conducting religious marriage ceremonies between men and women, it appears that supporters of same-sex marriage do not want religious leaders to be part of the debate on this issue.�
Bishop Frederick Henry wrote a letter to the Catholics in his Diocese in January, 2005 outlining the opposition of the Catholic Church to same-sex marriages (see coverage).� Bishop Henry called on Catholics to talk to their political representatives and express their opposition to legislation to change the definition of marriage to allow persons of same-sex to marry.� A Complaint filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission alleges that Bishop Henry’s letter discriminates against homosexuals.�

Local radio is reporting there are two complaints.
[Part I]
Hugh Hewitt has a related article in the Weekly Standard.

All of these charges–from the most incoherent to the most measured–arrive without definition as to what “the religious right” is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors. Danforth’s position is, apparently, that the agenda of the left on these matters ought not to be resisted, which means that it will
be enacted. “For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group,” Danforth intones, “is often to oppose the cause of another.” That is inescapably true. To come to the defense of the unborn, as Senator Danforth correctly notes he always did during his legislative career, is to oppose abortion on demand. To come to the aid of the Christians in Sudan is to oppose the wishes of the Muslims who sought their destruction. Every political conflict is a choice between competing moral codes.

Ammar Abdulhamid, a dissident blogger in Syria, recounts a recent interrogation at the hands of a “higher fuck”.

This regime is so cut off from reality that it always ends up making what seems so unlikely well-nigh inevitable. That is the essence of my intuition. The withdrawal from Lebanon is not the end of the ordeal, as some want, but the real beginning of it. The wolves who are interrogating me today will once again be sent loose among the sheep to help ensure our continued patriotism.
And the leadership’s line of defense against its critics at this stage will be, as is usually the case in these circumstances, to plead ignorance, albeit it is taking place will be taking place in their name.
Indeed, they might be right. Indeed they will not know all the details.
For ours is not simply a system where the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, it is a system where the thumb, or the middle finger if you like, does know what the other fingers of the selfsame hand are doing. And so it goes. In order to assure yourself that you have true deniability, you have to grant too much autonomy to the worst most ignorant and sadistic elements in the system.
Yes. Yes. These days are coming back, just when we thought and hoped they were gone never to come back. Few of us might end up going first to this cross, but all shall soon follow. It does not take a prophet to predict this.
No. This is not a comforting thought. Nothing about this is comforting. Comfort has no place here. But then, when the noose tightens, comfort is not exactly what’s at stake.

Via Roger Simon.