In all this talk coming from the left about the sanctity of Democracy and pausing Parliament for the Olympics eroding the institution of elected government; I ask what all these people like Kady O'Malley and Heather Mallick were saying when Paul Martin cancelled opposition days for nearly a year to avoid heat over the Sponsorship Program? In that case, it was okay to manipulate our precious Democracy, but pause to host an International Event and suddenly the sky is falling and we should all be outraged. I have to thank Marx-A-Million for "link dumping" that pleasant reminder in my comment section. Most of the best ammunition for right thinkers are the words of the far left.
Here's the kicker, they are furious that the Tories are going to tip the balance in the unelected Senate because it is tactically advantageous for the Liberals to use the unelected Senate to filibuster the legislation of the elected representatives. They have been using their advantage in the unelected chamber to hinder what the government has been trying to do for 4 years, and now they are upset that they are going to lose the advantage. They are "protecting Democracy" by asserting that an unelected chamber be allowed to filibuster the elected chamber.
They are hiding behind the Afghan detainee issue as their cloak of righteousness, but that matter will be no different in a few weeks than it is now. We are talking about something that is alleged to have happened years ago, and if what they allege did happen, nothing will be different after the Olympics, except for the unelected Senate.
For more reading on the absurdity of Liberal opinion, I would encourage you to sample some for yourself...
I have the Iceman murdering Democracy with the candlestick in the library.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, the Conservatives were getting a lot of heat over the Afghan prisoner issue. The Conservatives wanted to figuratively tear the shreds of diplomat Richard Colvin. When that didn't work, they denied the Commons committee unedited documents related to the issue. When that didn't reduce the heat, they boycotted the hearings. When that didn't work, Harper had to phone the GG to prorogue Parliament.
ReplyDeleteI do predict that Harper will go to the GG to ask for an election which she will highly likely grant. If Harper can't get it through an opposition non-confidence of a very conservative budget, he will just claim that the parliamentary committees are not functioning. He'll claim that the opposition is obstructionist.
This "heat" you refer to Mr Dipper is dissent entirely manufactured by the opposition. It did not, as you say, reduce the heat because Ujjal Dosangh and Evan Soloman refused to shut up. It makes sense, as they really don't have anything else to complain about.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we will see what kind of traction this issue can generate in the general population, because it has been on the table now for what, 6 weeks? There has been little to no movement in public opinion.
The heat is not coming from the public, it is coming from the opposition politicians determined to finally make a controversy stick to the government.
ReplyDeleteSD,
ReplyDeleteheat, from who, what polls do you have showing anyone is listening to the looney left?
The liberal CBC News, The National failed. They could not break the top 30.
The Red Star? The Liberals hacks who hate Canada? Other than 100 angry birkenstock bloggers who cares?
The fear running through the left is evident. Their time is up March 2010. No more hiding behind the Senate. Will the Liberals show up or lay down again....
Pelalusa, if you have to ask, then you don't get an answer.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing just how quickly something like the proroguement of Parliament becomes an outrage.
ReplyDeleteWhen Chretien prorogued Parliament in 2002, it was to give himself an advantage over Paul Martin in party in-fighting. Internal Liberal Party matters were again at the centre of the 2003 proroguement.
But that apparently wasn't an outrage. Not to Mallick.
I've seen the weakness in the liberal argument.
ReplyDeleteWhen this discussion comes up, merely ask:
"Is it now a liberal platform to reform the Senate to a triple E model?"
or
"Are you telling me the liberal party is advocating a major constitutional rewrite to remove the ability to porogue the house?"
You will get a confused, look I guarantee it.