Torture, Spin, and Fair Play

Earlier this week, Warren Kinsella directed the considerable weight of his spinmanship against the leadership candidacy of Etobicoke Lakeshore MP, Michael Ignatieff. this is not the first time that Michael Ignatieff's words have been twisted by his critics but it does not take much to understand how blately misrepresented his views have been. Before going any further in this post I should make clear that I believe Michael Ignatieff would do a good job as leader of the Liberal party.

Warren Kinsella doesn't seem to mind misrepresenting the views presented in the essay or dismissing a nuanced opinion and said so himself. I thought I might follow in Warren's footsteps and post here my own "representative sampling" of remarks from the essay.

The article in Prospect opens with the following point:

The moral imperative—do not torture, any time, anywhere, in any circumstances—is mandated by the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency," says the convention, can "be invoked as a justification of torture." That terrorists themselves torture does not change these imperatives. Our compliance does not depend on reciprocity.

on the topic of justifying torture through the use of an "argument of necessity" he has this rebuke:

The acts remain bad, and the person must accept the moral opprobrium and not seek to excuse the inexcusable with the justifications of necessity.

While willing to connote degrees of "immoral action" by saying things like this:

If one enumerates the forms of coercive interrogation that have been judged to be inhuman and degrading by the Israeli and the European courts—hooding, holding subjects in painful positions, exposing them to cold or heat or ear-splitting noise—these techniques also seem unacceptable, though at a lower threshold of awfulness, than torture.

He is convinced that such arguments could not lead to the endorsement or permissability of the practice of any kind of unacceptable techinques. He clearly recognises the slippery slope of such ideas:

I have practical difficulty enumerating a list of coercive techniques that I would be willing to have a democratic society inflict in my name. I accept, for example, that a slap is not the same thing as a beating, but I still don't want interrogators to slap detainees because I cannot see how to prevent the occasional slap deteriorating into a regular practice of beating.

he makes clear his belief that torture and coercive interrogation must be banned and there must be punishment for those who practice these techniques:

It seems clear from the dire experience of Abu Ghraib that outright prohibition of both torture and coercive interrogation is the only way to proceed. Rules for interrogations, with penalties in the uniform code of military justice, should be mandatory.

He also outlines some of the challenges and failures in the US case of enforcing such a ban and suggests that:

...court review and access, however imperfect, is the only reliable way to keep detention under the rule of law.

Wrapping up these thoughts he is very clear in his position:

...an absolute and unconditional ban on both torture and those forms of coercive interrogation that involve stress and duress, and I believe that enforcement of such a ban should be up to the military justice system plus the federal courts. I also believe that the training of interrogators can be improved by executive order and that the training must rigorously exclude stress and duress methods.

Having clearly established his position he deals with some of the more problematic possibilities, the "ticking bomb scenario" and the asserted "utility" of these practices. Some of his thoughts:

even a conscientious agent acting in good faith to save lives should be charged with a criminal offence and be required to stand trial.

It is often said—and I argued so myself—that neither coercive interrogation nor torture is necessary, since entirely lawful interrogation can secure just as effective results. There must be some truth to this. Israeli interrogators have given interviews assuring the Israeli public that physical duress is unnecessary.

In wrapping up his essay Michael makes clear that even though the prohibition of torture and coercive interrogation may come at a price to the societies that implement them, societies must choose to pay that price. In his own words:

those who support an absolute ban on torture had better be honest enough to admit that moral prohibition comes at a price.

The best I can do is to relate the ban on torture to the political identity of the democracies we are trying to defend—by claiming that democracies limit the powers that governments can justly exercise over the human beings under their power, and that these limits include an absolute ban on subjecting individuals to forms of pain that strip them of their dignity, identity and even sanity.

We cannot torture, in other words, because of who we are. This is the best I can do, but those of us who believe this had better admit that many of our fellow citizens are bound to disagree.

Those of us who oppose torture should also be honest enough to admit that we may have to pay a price for our own convictions...I cannot tell how high this price might be. Ex post—following another terrorist attack that might have been prevented through the exercise of coercive interrogation—the price of my scruple might simply seem too high. This is a risk I am prepared to take, but frankly, a majority of fellow citizens is unlikely to concur.

Here's a bit of a recap from my perspective:

Not only has Michael given this topic considerable thought and research, he has here demonstrated that his opposition to torture and coercive interrogation is unconditional. His commitment to this ban extends beyond political expediency and is a fundamental conviction. Here a politician and leadership hopeful has articulated a clear policy, has responses for those who argue differently and is willing to hold this position and be judged on his stance unconditionally. Isn't this exactly the kind of ability we want to see more of? Isn't this what endears Stephane Dion to strong federalists and what Liberals value in leaders like Pearson and Trudeau?

I'm certain that by posting this I will hear the inevitable accusations of "kool-aid drinker" but this post is not to say that the candidate is without fault. Certainly there are criticisms to be made of Dr. Ignatieff, but certainly we can get beyond the idea that the man is in favor of torture.

Yes, as Mr. Kinsella says, the manner in which this article has been written lends itself to misrepresentation and were it published during an election would have an effect. The man is learning to modulate his message in a more political manner and his speech today at the University of Ottawa is a prime example at his growth in this skill.

UPDATE:
Among other bloggers commenting on this essay we find that CalgaryGrit, Rob's Random Thoughts, The "What do I know" Grit, Odd Thoughts, Just Society and R&R have all objected to Warren's mischaracterization of Ignatieff's views. They have also to varying degrees endorsed his candidacy. Andrew Potter has an old defense of the man here.

Blue Grit has a link to an interview on C-SPAN defending his views in case you want further clarity.

CalgaryGrit, Red Tory and Cerberus have posted positive profiles of Ignatieff as a candidate.

Red Tory also has a post dismissing accusations of "Liberal tourism"

Another endorsement comes from: Aman Hayer

The Accord Has Been Signed!

Now that the King Edward Accord has come and gone. Now that Sheila "Feels the love again" there is a lot of coverage rolling around these days. We've got articles here, here, here and here.

In the land of blogging we've got a fantastic post from Bcer in Toronto, one from Cerberus and another from James Curran. Jason also tried to liveblog (not great results).

Did I miss anyone?

They've Invited the King?

The Sheila Copps love-in that was originally conceived by Liberal MP Paul Zed and former Liberal MP Dennis Mills is coming soon. The event is to be hosted at the King Edward Hotel and as it has all the makings of a Peace Treaty/Cease Fire/Armistice is being referred to as the "King Edward Accord." As much as I think Sheila should be honoured for her contributions to the party and that many apologies should be rained down upon her for her treatment in 2003 and then again in 2004, I certainly hope that no one has taken it into their heads to make her royalty.

Some big names will be making appearances: John Turner, Jean Chretien, Warren Kinsella, Tim Murphy, Jane Stewart, Carolyn Bennett, Belinda Stronach. Paul Martin has also been invited.

Nothing like a good, cathartic, drunken mutual admiration party. Further evidence of my personal dictum that "alcohol is the only solution to political friction."


UPDATE:(via)
It turns out that the organisers are interested in getting the good news out into the blogosphere, they've offered press credentials to any political blogger interested in attending. They've put aside a press room at the hotel with internet access. This is all part of "recogniz[ing] the important role that Bloggers are now playing on the Canadian political landscape."

Cherniak, TDH, CalgaryGrit have all picked it up. Kudos to the organisers.

Visits from on High

At least two hill staffers have nothing better to do than read my blog it seems. I was running through by server log this morning and discovered visits from two different parliamentary servers. My mom is so proud of me right now. Hopefully it isn't CSIS.

Entry Time: Browser: OS: Resolution:

21st March 2006 08:00:15 MSIE 6.0 Windows XP 1024x768

Location: Hostname: Entry Page:

Ontario, Ottawa, Canada parl205.parl.gc.ca (192.197.82.205) www.michaelcrook.ca/

Entry Time: Browser: OS: Resolution:

21st March 2006 10:11:31 MSIE 6.0 Windows XP 1280x1024

Location: Hostname: Entry Page:

Ontario, Ottawa, Canada parl203.parl.gc.ca (192.197.82.203) www.michaelcrook.ca/

UPDATE:
At least one visitor is interested in setting up visit logging on their own blog. It's made a very simple process by the free service at statcounter.com It's a fairly simple process:

1. Register
2. Insert a small snippet of code onto your blog template
3. Get depressed at how few people actually read what you have to say

On War and Peace

I've just finished reading Gwynne Dyer's bestselling history "War" and was both impressed with how readable it was given the subject matter but also by the compelling nature of the book's argument. Dr. Dyer is convinced that the institution of warfare can be eliminated and describes the efforts of the post-world war II powers in the creation of the UN and associated institutions as a "100 year project" to that end. Of course he also points out that we're behind schedule and that the invasion of Iraq represents a setback on that trajectory.

In that line of thinking and given the volume of civil wars, insurgencies, and guerrilla actions motivated ostensibly by inappropriately harnessed religious sentiment, and the sheer volume of death and destruction enacted in the name of God, I was encouraged when I read this article. My favorite quote:

The speeches at this conference rather than using polite, diplomatic language have at times been brutally direct. When the Rabbi Metzger harangued mainstream Muslims for not standing up to Osama bin Laden, Islamic leaders nodded in agreement.

Of course the idea of Osama bin Laden as a unifier of the world’s religious communities is the kind of irony one seldom finds in real life. I think that this kind of dialogue between the world's faiths can't help but be a force for good.

Those who have read the "Left Behind" books will start screaming about an imagined "vast global conspiracy" to create "one world religion" and persecute the Christian church. I think I take the facts of the world in which we currently live more seriously than this kind of fiction and the case of this man in Afghanistan currently facing trial for converting to Christianity begs the question of whether more dialogue between the world's religious communities might reduce the tendency towards theocratic oppression. Especially when the reporters covering these types of meetings get to write things like this:

Both Muslim and Jewish leaders have shown a preparedness to take criticism.
There have also been strong expressions of opposition to any killing in the name of religion.

Maybe some Imams should mention that last bit to the government of Afghanistan. Maybe mention the bit about Osama as well.

Let the doubting of my salvation begin.

UPDATE:
The Afghan man who was facing possible execution for his adopted faith has been freed after a court dismissed his case. This was in the wake of building international pressure from Western Democracies.

One More for Carole Taylor

After 5 years of what might be called a "frosty" relationship with BC's Labour sector, the BC Liberals had their first contract success in recent memory (by recent memory I mean I can't remember it ever happening). I recall strikes with the BCNU, BCGEU, BCHEU, and a couple rounds of strikes with the BCTF (most recently this past fall's illegal strike action).

Today the BC government got a tentative deal with the BC Government Service and Employees' Union that will last 4 years. A quote from the article:

the agreement, which will be voted on by BCGEU members within the next three weeks, includes a wage increase of 10 per cent over four years, strict limits on contracting out and an average signing bonus for each full-time employee of $4,000.

The agreement also includes the equivalent of another 0.5-per-cent wage increase to be used to retain and recruit employees in hard-to-fill positions.

It appears that the previous approach to Labour relations, which was beating unions with the biggest stick the government could find, has been replaced by a "kinder, gentler" labour relations strategy that involves incentives and a newfound respect for labour relations law. I wonder how much the new government strategy has been the result of the 5-figure shortage of available workers in the economy. It's a lot easier to beat the crap out of unions when the economy has high unemployment and the market is offering relatively low wages.

Using billions of dollars to bribe unions into signing contracts was, I must say, an inspired market signal. Those lines in the budget set up some very good conditions for the government both in terms of getting deals signed with the public sector and winnning the PR war when a few of those deals inevitably don't get signed.

The BC economy is in high gear and the government likes to remind us of this fact. It's true and it even true that the past five years of caving to every imaginable industry demand/request/dream has been part of our recent economic success. What is easy to forget in the midst of an economic boom is that economies are cyclical. Booms do not last forever and inevitably the cycle reverses and as the economic engine slows itself down, unemployment rises, wages are supressed and the people who live on the margins of the middle class are pulled under by the rip tide of recession. This simple economic pattern is the reason that unions became such an important socio-political force throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries and it is the reason that workers were willing to risk their lives to fight for some legally enforceable economic stability outside the boom/bust cycle of the aggregate economy.

It isn't suprising to see that this function of labour organisation is still at work. In the early years of the Campbell government, in a weak economic climate, it was the position of the "employer" that the strength of the unions was the reason for the economic malaise and all their demands were unreasonable. This lead to a number of strikes and because of the conviction with which this position was held by the government also lead to legislative changes designed to undermine the "overly strong" unions.

Since we're now a few years later in the story and the economy has picked up, the "employer" isn't so concerned with union power as they are with labour peace. It is less likely we'll see protracted strikes in the coming months and if we do it will be related to non-economic concerns (teacher autonomy or nurses concerned with the safety of their practice). It is good news for everyone that the BCGEU has put a tentative deal together but it's dangerous for labour leaders in the province to think that the new government policy reflects a real change in the attitude of the governing party. They are economic changes and not philosphical ones that have made for the more positive tone of negotiations.

The moral of this story is to be reminded of the multiple roles that government plays when it comes to public sector unions. It is the responsibility of the legislature to ensure that there is a fair and open labour relations process for both private and public sector unions. However, as the monopsonist employer in the public sector, it is also the government's job to negotiate with its employees. This tension creates a permanent temptation to use the legislative option to solve complicated or negative labour relations situations. This option should be a last resort in the event of crisis. Whenever government succumbs to the temptation to improvise a temporary legislative solution to a negotiations impasse, they undermine the larger and more universal labour relations framework throughout the economy. These kinds of changes establish a more uncertain economic environment and often infringe of the rights of all the workers in the economy.

Posts like this are pretty strong evidence that my parent's lifelong participation in the labour movement has had an effect on my worldview. Please don't take this post as an endorsement of the inevitable excesses of the modern Canadian labour movement. unions do exist for a reason but certainly very little of what they say and do is reasonable.

Not So Far From Home

As the week rolls inexoribly to the national exec meeting this weekend, and Mark Merrison throws his support behind Stephane Dion, I wanted to revisit one of the issues I don't have a solution to. I was struck by the following thoughts from Akaash while in Jordan:

The one conversation that most stood out for me was with Adab Al-Saoud, a female Jordanian MP. Adab is a former social worker elected to parliament as an independent. Although I am half a world away from home, her concerns about life as a parliamentarian could have been uttered by any MP in Ottawa. Her home is some distance from the capital, and being separated from her husband and children for long stretches of time wears on her. She feels that she is making a difference in parliament, but she is uncertain whether she is making as much of a difference as she did in her previous career. She is dismayed by the lack of women in parliament, still more concerned by the lack of women in the executive branch of government, and feels that politics are held back by the gender imbalance.

During the election I posted a little bit on the gender balance of the 38th parliament and hesitantly came to the conclusion that the actual election process seems to not the be weak link in the woman's equality chain when it comes to electoral politics but instead it seemed to me that we should lay blame with the nomination process. While I usually mistrust the conventional wisdom, my opinion is shared by more than one "expert" in the area.

There was a bit of a hickup in my theory however, anecdotal evidence suggests that political parties are more than willing to go recruiting female candidates, it seems that for one reason or another many of these women aren't interested in saying yes. As I said at the time:

Is it possible that the real reason that so few women are in elected office in Canada is not that the rules are against them but that they are against the rules? It's a pretty narrow distinction to make but I think it's a legitimate one. I think the largest reason that more women aren't elected is because they don't want to be. Let me put it another way: elected office is a sacrifice, but it is a much larger sacrifice for women than for men.

Oddly enough not more than a couple days later I heard an "expert" on the subject say exactly the same thing, "elected office is a sacrifice, but it is a larger sacrifice for women than for men."

What struck me about the conversation that Akaash described is both the apparant universality of this challenge but also the fact that for all our assumptions that our democratic institutions are healthier than those of places like Jordan, here we find that both nations are fighting the same battle.

In a time where Canadian are debating what ails the medicare system and British Columbian's are facing up to the harsh reality that millions of children face in our province, I too am "dismayed by the lack of women in parliament, still more concerned by the lack of women in the executive branch of government, and [feel] that politics [is] held back by the gender imbalance."
My hat goes off to the dozens of women in the Liberal Party who pay the price of public service, while their families and marriages may also pay a cost, I am confident that our nation is the better for their service and I hope that one day, it will no longer be as high a price to pay for women to win elections.

Democracy in the Middle East

As I mentioned here, I'm not even remotely close to an expert on affairs of state in the Middle East. However, I know someone who is. Regular readers of this blog will already know the high esteem I have for Akaash Maharaj. I admire the man in large part because he has made the values of his liberalism the foundation of his vocation through his work as CEO of the Concordis Foundation. I've been reading his blog these past few days where he's been detailing his exploits at a summit in Jordan on building Democracy.

Having been following Akaash's exploits already I was a little suprised to receive the e-mail below from former Ontario Premier David Peterson and thought I'd share it with the world (hopefully I'm not offending):

Dear Colleagues,

I'm delighted to ask you to join me in monitoring a set of United Nations talks, aimed at bolstering democracy and security in the Middle East.

My friend Akaash Maharaj is the Canadian participant at the UN meetings in Jordan, and he has taken the extraordinary step of publishing a daily account of developments through his blog at < http://www.maharaj.org/blog.shtml >. Akaash believes that greater public scrutiny makes for better and more accountable politics, and I hope you'll visit his blog and send him your thoughts.

Held under the authority of the UN's International Leadership Institute, the initiative is bringing together elected MPs from across the Middle East, and exposing them to democratic leaders from Europe and North America. The programme looks to help the MPs broaden their understanding of democracy, to increase their capacity to uphold the rule of law in their countries, and to develop non-violent strategies for conflict resolution in the region.

Akaash's focus at the talks is on freedom of expression, diplomacy and international law, and peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. He seems to prefer the easy subjects.

We've never been more aware of the importance of democracy across the world to the well-being of each of us across our country.
Working together, Canadians can make our country a better place by making the world a better place.

Sincere regards,
The Hon David Peterson, PC, QC

So while Akaash is in Jordan hoping democrats to further develop their own democracies, I'd hope that the members of the national executive of the Liberal Party are able to remind themselves what democracy requires. In our case, as Liberals, it requires an open and fair leadership process with a sufficiently long time line. I'm proud to share membership in a party with both these men.

For free, here's my favorite quote from Akaash's bloggery thus far:

Moreover, being a Canadian is the diplomatic equivalent of the vegetarian option: acceptable to virtually everyone, likely safe in an uncertain setting, but something of a mystery until it arrives. As a result, the other guests seemed disarmed when they spoke with me, and were surprisingly candid.

Bad Googles & Alter Egos

Over at On the Fence, Kelly Nestruck was inspired by a national post column to talk about "bad googles" and how to beat them. I appreciated his story as I'm a big fan of legal threats as a strategy for personal improvement.

Anyways, I thought I'd share my own "bad google" story although it's more a case of having an international alter ego.

Let me introduce you to Michael Vogel-Delaney. Also known as Michael Crook, he has become relatively infamous for his on-line campaigns against the US army. He owns a large number of domains and last January he put himself under the microscope of media scrutiny by ransoming a digital camera he found which belonged to a member of the US Armed Forces.

His rise to infamy was fuelled by a number of websites he created the most well known of which was called "forsake the troops". Many did not appreciate the sentiment expressed on this and similar sites and so these days when one googles the name we share, the first result, thankfully, is this blog but it is followed by a blog interview of the other Michael Crook, a wikipedia entry outlining Mr. Crook's failed projects and a site declaring that Michael Crook is a number one asshole.

I've actually sent Mr. Crook an e-mail asking if I could purchase the michaelcrook.org domain where he currently locates his personal website. He informed me that he has no intention of selling and that he was aware of my blog and read it occasionally. I guess I'll just have to find ways to get more websites talking about me if I ever want to have a clean "personal google".

The Alberta of the Future

It turns out that Premier Klein takes the retirement age seriously. The Calgary Herald has an article today saying that at the end of the month he will announce his retirement date (h/t CalgaryGrit). When will the Dynasty end? If I'm doing the math right it will be October 31st 2007 (One month before his 65th birthday). I'm hoping that I'm doing the math right because that is just the best darn birthday present Ralph could get me.

In other news, Jim Dinning, former Education Minister under Donald Getty and Provincial Treasurer to Mr. Klein, is well on his way to being crowned Prince. I'm a Liberal in Vancouver and the man has chatted me up at two events and he didn't even feel like he had to ask for my support. That's confidence folks.

Alberta's political culture is certainly unique as far as Canadian provincial politics goes. It's one of the reasons that I appreciate federalism. Here on the "left" coast we like to watch the political equivalent of a cockfight and tend to give the keys to the legislature to the party who gets covered in the most blood. In Alberta, it's an entirely different ball-game. In fact, it's about as close to a democratic monarchy as you can get. My experience of Alberta provincial politics (based on my one year at the U of C) is that it is entirely like the politics of a family reunion. This works just fine for the people of Alberta who seem to disapprove of the idea of "opposition".

Historically, Alberta dynasties are replaced by newly formed political parties rather than established opposition parties. This fact combined with the Green party’s recent electoral results in the province makes me wonder.

If only life were that full of irony...

UPDATE:
Jim Dinning has an official website up and running here. (via)

FURTHER UPDATE:
It's worth mentioning that Ralph's 19 month retirement window is even longer than the timeline Chretien set (another record broken by King Ralph) but according to this article, he's now kicking leadership aspirants out of cabinet. I'm not certain that this isn't a way of keeping current caucus members out of the race and thus reinforce Jim's campaign. Another page out of Chretien's book.

Freedom of Speech

Disclaimer: Rant to follow

I'm posting the quote below because as near as I can tell, Freedom of Speech has been grossly deformed in the minds of many in the Liberal Party. Understanding this most "liberal" of ideas must remain at the center of any attempt at renewal. Perhaps we are too used to the contraints of power and have forgotten not only that dissent is not disloyalty but also that the only message that will be heard or persuasive is a message that people choose to hear.

“Plato establishes the principle all too frequently ignored today that freedom of speech includes also the liberty to refuse to listen. Freedom of speech serves the purposes of rational discussion; whoever abuses it is breaking the rules of the game as accepted by civilized society; such violation demands social sanctions and when milder forms of warning have no effect, one has no option but to turn one's back on the offender and go away.” —Eric Voegelin

If we are unable to renew the party in such a way that those who come in its doors are welcomed and those who voice alternative views are not pushed out into the cold then no matter who ends up leading the party, we will inevitably be reduced to a shrill voice crying in the wilderness.

The Greeks taught that all tragedy flows from hubris, let us learn that lesson the easy way and not at the expense of the great country we all wish to help build.

(End of santicmonious ranting and self-aggrandisement)

Let the scolding begin.

Inner Geek Exposed

At the risk of seriously diminshing the membership of my fan club, I'm going to post a link to a joke whose punch line is in latin. Worse, there's a bible verse involved. Unfortunately for all of you, I found it funny.

Russ Kuykendall has these thoughts on Dennis Bevington's attempt to change the national motto.

I must be desperately starved for comedy.

He just keeps suprising

Andrew Potter is rapidly becoming my favorite on-line read. I've mentioned this before. Not that he's done babysitting for Andrew Coyne, he's back at the Rebel Sell blog and today posted a link to his latest column. Turns out he's still got a gift for the unseen angle on a story and I keep getting caught off guard by his arguments.

Today's column makes the case against an ethics commissioner, and he's persuaded me. Of course I'm a Liberal partisan and at the moment Bernard Shapiro is our strongest political capital. Why would I agree that we should get read if it? read the column and see if you're not convinced either.

Meanwhile, the end of the world is just a little bit closer for certain young prince.

Back For But a Moment

It has been some time since I've been able to put up a post, Largely because I've found myself living through the whole five acts of Hamlet. Hopefully this situation finds its way to a happier ending.

You see, Shakespeare applies in every circumstance. Here are the highlights from the last week worth of intrigue with Young Liberals of Canada in BC:

Young Idealist Demands Justice

Hamlet

Does it not, think'st thee, stand me now upon--

He that hath kill'd my king and whored my mother,

Popp'd in between the election and my hopes,

Thrown out his angle for my proper life,

And with such cozenage--is't not perfect conscience,

To quit him with this arm? and is't not to be damn'd,

To let this canker of our nature come

In further evil?

Both Young Princes wounded in their strife:

Laertes

Why, as a woodcock to mine own springe, Osric;

I am justly kill'd with mine own treachery.

Hamlet

O villany! Ho! let the door be lock'd:

Treachery! Seek it out.

A Confession of Treachery:

Laertes

It is here, Hamlet: Hamlet, thou art slain;

No medicine in the world can do thee good;

In thee there is not half an hour of life;

The treacherous instrument is in thy hand,

Unbated and envenom'd: the foul practise

Hath turn'd itself on me lo, here I lie,

Never to rise again: thy mother's poison'd:

I can no more: the king, the king's to blame.

Seems some things never change although in case it is somewhat difficult to determine exactly where the King's interference ocurred. The evidence is there though. Hopefully the poison turns out to be less toxic.

(For those of you utterly confused, my apologies. For the remainder, let's not all fall on our swords unless we must)