Yesterday, Harper accused Canada's judiciary of being "political activists" from the bench. (Oh right - they have interpret laws written by politicians - we won't go into the fact that politicians are inherently politicized, will we).
Today, in a horrendously bad attempt to backpedal, Harper claims that Conservatives would "accept" checks and balances. First of all, Mr. Harper, you don't get a choice in whether you "accept" our country's checks and balances. They are there for good reason, and may whatever God you worship help you if you decide to breach them (much less as egregiously as King George I of the Imperial United States has done), because the citizens of this fair nation will not be pleased.
The more obvious question - and I think Mr. Martin was even smart enough to pick up on it - is just what is it that a politician has in mind when running around telling us that "they will accept checks and balances", and that a "liberal appointed judiciary and senate" will keep their government in check? Having lived in Alberta much of my life, I can make a pretty educated guess at what you have in mind - and it's downright ugly when I look at it.
I can only hope that the Canadian voter is smart enough to not give you the opportunity to begin. With Harper making these kinds of statements already, I can only imagine just what the writhing masses of the CPC extremist elements must be doing beneath the veneer of silence that the party has presented this election.
I may not be a Paul Martin fan, but I'm even less interested in Stephen Harper being able to adopt the moniker Prime Minister.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alberta's Anti-Trans Legislation
So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and...
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ... -
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
2 comments:
The Conversion of Stephen Harper:
To change from voting Liberal to voting Conservative on Monday would mean accepting that Stephen Harper had undergone a conversion from the rightwing Saul of Canadian politics, to the middle-of-the-road Paul. Voters asked to believe this conversion need to satisfy themselves that the Harper who stood in front of a gathering of neocons in the USA in 1997 and lauded them as examples to be followed, praised their philosophy, denigrated Maritimers, decried Canada as a welfare state not to be emulated, has, in the course of the past 18 months, suddenly seen the light, and changed.
How credible is this Harper conversion? Well, let the man speak for himself: he said he has become more realistic, but his fundamental beliefs have not changed. Oh, and his comments were really in jest.
If so, how much stock can a voter place today on his program, on his statements that there will not be serious cuts, that he will not introduce legislation to take away rights entrenched by the Supreme Court? What assurance does a voter have that Harper will not turn around in six months time and tell the country: Sorry, folks – I was only joking when I said those things ....
Sorry, Mr Harper, I for one do not believe a leopard can change its spots. Not even a very smart leopard. But I do believe a leopard just might dress up in sheep’s clothing ...
Well Said!
- Grog
Post a Comment