Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
House Wrecker: Ending the Harper Threat to Canada
by C. L. Cook
The soon to be erstwhile prime minister Stephen Harper appeared tonight in a much hyped, but ultimately postage stamp sized address to the nation. Harper's brief message, less than half the length advertised to the networks, according to the CBC's Peter Mansbridge, delivered in as contrite a tone he could summon revealed little news.
As short as his speech was, Harper did find room to fit in a couple lies. Telling whoppers as blatant as any told south of the border these last years seems to be another Bush family trait the Harper regime has taken to heart. Harper tonight looked the camera in the eye, knowing millions of concerned Canadians were hanging on every word, and told one bald-faced lie after another.
by C. L. Cook
The soon to be erstwhile prime minister Stephen Harper appeared tonight in a much hyped, but ultimately postage stamp sized address to the nation. Harper's brief message, less than half the length advertised to the networks, according to the CBC's Peter Mansbridge, delivered in as contrite a tone he could summon revealed little news.
As short as his speech was, Harper did find room to fit in a couple lies. Telling whoppers as blatant as any told south of the border these last years seems to be another Bush family trait the Harper regime has taken to heart. Harper tonight looked the camera in the eye, knowing millions of concerned Canadians were hanging on every word, and told one bald-faced lie after another.
Adding sting to insult, Stephen informed the citizenry:
Say what?
Being intimately familiar with the Canadian parliamentary system of governance, what the prime minister might have meant to say was:
Harper is holding a pistol to the head of Canada's parliamentary tradition; in this case, that pistol is aimed at the office of the Governor-General, Michaëlle Jean. He is scheduled to visit the Queen's representative tomorrow morning. Though Harper's address to the nation failed to mention what he would ask of Jean, speculation is he will ask she endorse his motion to prorogue the house until the new year. This means no vote of confidence against his government until after the winter break. It also means changing the nature of the duties of the Governor-General's office for ever.
If Michaëlle Jean allows Harper either invoke closure on the House, or let him drop the writ for another election, she will set a precedent that effectively spells the end of the very office she represents. If the GG gives in and prorogues simply to suit Harper's political timetable, what stops future minority leaders from invoking the same protection? Doesn't this go against the cornerstone principles of parliament? The prime minister seems willing, in his desperate last grasp at political salvation, to pervert not only the function of the office of the Governor-General, but to sully too the parliamentary process itself.
Over the past week, an astonishing array of half-truths, and outright lies blared across the corporate media in Canada, much to the delight of the dedicated news cyclistas. Some of these boners defy understanding. Like charges of "treason" and "sedition" being bandied about by government supporters, to government representatives announcing this week the refusal of the coalition parties to include the Maple Leaf during their signing ceremony, despite video evidence to the contrary.
Seeing these obvious untruths repeated over and again across the media, (going largely unquestioned and universally unanswered) is eerily similar to the disappearing of anything resembling public truth during George W. Bush's infamous rise. Say anything. Never back down. Attack. Attack.
"The Liberals and NDP do not have the right to form a coalition with separatists."
Being intimately familiar with the Canadian parliamentary system of governance, what the prime minister might have meant to say was:
"I will pull any lever, exercise any trick to save my political career; including inciting separatist disaffection in both French and English Canada, prizing a rift that could well split the country; unless I get my way and close the parliament."
Harper is holding a pistol to the head of Canada's parliamentary tradition; in this case, that pistol is aimed at the office of the Governor-General, Michaëlle Jean. He is scheduled to visit the Queen's representative tomorrow morning. Though Harper's address to the nation failed to mention what he would ask of Jean, speculation is he will ask she endorse his motion to prorogue the house until the new year. This means no vote of confidence against his government until after the winter break. It also means changing the nature of the duties of the Governor-General's office for ever.
If Michaëlle Jean allows Harper either invoke closure on the House, or let him drop the writ for another election, she will set a precedent that effectively spells the end of the very office she represents. If the GG gives in and prorogues simply to suit Harper's political timetable, what stops future minority leaders from invoking the same protection? Doesn't this go against the cornerstone principles of parliament? The prime minister seems willing, in his desperate last grasp at political salvation, to pervert not only the function of the office of the Governor-General, but to sully too the parliamentary process itself.
Over the past week, an astonishing array of half-truths, and outright lies blared across the corporate media in Canada, much to the delight of the dedicated news cyclistas. Some of these boners defy understanding. Like charges of "treason" and "sedition" being bandied about by government supporters, to government representatives announcing this week the refusal of the coalition parties to include the Maple Leaf during their signing ceremony, despite video evidence to the contrary.
Seeing these obvious untruths repeated over and again across the media, (going largely unquestioned and universally unanswered) is eerily similar to the disappearing of anything resembling public truth during George W. Bush's infamous rise. Say anything. Never back down. Attack. Attack.
Canadians are getting a good look at the "New Government of Canada" as it squirms under the arc lights, and it isn't a pretty sight. Look long enough and you begin to see the narcissistic streak that would let the country break before surrender. Focus a little longer and the snide, derisive contempt for Canadian democracy, with its myriad, fangled legal niceties lies evident at the core of the Conservatives' approach to power.
How much easier, Mr. Harper may wonder, it would be were he a president, as coalition leader Stephane Dion suggested.
Three elections in less than four years. Three minority governments. If there were an election called tomorrow, is there any doubt it would be: i) the least attended affair of its kind in history, and ii) likely to return another minority?
The coalition is a perfectly Canadian solution and it comes at a time when homegrown values will serve Canada best: Cooperation, compromise, community action, these and a long tradition of successful struggle against adversity will now bide Canada well. Let presidents and Republican reformers stand down a moment, while we right the ship of state and make sure that ship is ready for the rough weather expected ahead.
Mr. Harper, Canada has seen your platform, and now offers you a plank. Kindly walk it.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (3)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by cms, December 03, 2008
Thank you for one of the most clear-headed articles I've read all week.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Charles H, December 04, 2008
The coalition is actually a terrible idea. It is fully legal, yes, but so are a lot of terrible ideas. We have had relative economic stability under Harper's government for the past four years as the economic crisis continues to hit countries. The last thing we need is a sudden nose dive in the opposite direction at the hands of a coalition that, however legitimate under the parliamentary system, formed against it's own promises to voters at a time when we distinctly need cooperation and stability. Whether the moves by the coalition are allowed or not, it doesn't make them right.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by C. Cook, December 06, 2008
Dear CMS; have we been living in the same Canada the last four years?
You say;
"We have had relative economic stability under Harper's government for the past four years as the economic crisis continues to hit countries."
We've lived "under" Harper's government (or thumb)since his defeat of Paul Martin's minority government on January 23 2006. That means: Canada has been living under the thumb of Stephen Harper for eight weeks shy of three years. I'll agree, it seems much longer.
"Relative economic stability" is not such a great thing for those who suffer the status quo. Canadians have seen their wages stagnate, while there dollars buy less. They've seen government programs slashed, and have been made to pick up the slack in areas like health care, unemployment benefits, and higher real tax rates. Energy costs alone over the nearly three years of Mr. Harper's tenure have also crippled Canadian standards of living. Yes, in the last half year the economy has taken an ominous turn; but the reason for that is less to do with Stephen Harper the prime minister than Stephen Harper the man. Harper is a "small government" market first champion. He pitches the same American mantra of deregulation at all costs, and supports the hobbling of existing regulators to monitor for the honest working of the markets. This has led in America to the spectacular collapse of crony capitalism. Canada has been spared the broadside of this collapse precisely because Harper has NOT been in power long enough to have eviscerated the same kind of protection against these entirely precedented crashes. Given more time, he doubtless will remove those protections.
Rather than avoiding the "nose-dive" you fear is more likely to be in the form of Harper following doomed U.S. policies, rather than anything a proposed coalition could dream up. In fact, the chances of radical polices on either side of the political divide are extremely unlikely under a coalition, and therefore much more likely to add to Canadian "stability." And that will be a very attractive asset when it comes to attracting foreign investment in a very uncertain world.
You say;
"We have had relative economic stability under Harper's government for the past four years as the economic crisis continues to hit countries."
We've lived "under" Harper's government (or thumb)since his defeat of Paul Martin's minority government on January 23 2006. That means: Canada has been living under the thumb of Stephen Harper for eight weeks shy of three years. I'll agree, it seems much longer.
"Relative economic stability" is not such a great thing for those who suffer the status quo. Canadians have seen their wages stagnate, while there dollars buy less. They've seen government programs slashed, and have been made to pick up the slack in areas like health care, unemployment benefits, and higher real tax rates. Energy costs alone over the nearly three years of Mr. Harper's tenure have also crippled Canadian standards of living. Yes, in the last half year the economy has taken an ominous turn; but the reason for that is less to do with Stephen Harper the prime minister than Stephen Harper the man. Harper is a "small government" market first champion. He pitches the same American mantra of deregulation at all costs, and supports the hobbling of existing regulators to monitor for the honest working of the markets. This has led in America to the spectacular collapse of crony capitalism. Canada has been spared the broadside of this collapse precisely because Harper has NOT been in power long enough to have eviscerated the same kind of protection against these entirely precedented crashes. Given more time, he doubtless will remove those protections.
Rather than avoiding the "nose-dive" you fear is more likely to be in the form of Harper following doomed U.S. policies, rather than anything a proposed coalition could dream up. In fact, the chances of radical polices on either side of the political divide are extremely unlikely under a coalition, and therefore much more likely to add to Canadian "stability." And that will be a very attractive asset when it comes to attracting foreign investment in a very uncertain world.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
