Students joke about school as a prison, but what idiotic nonsense possesses educators to use prison cells for discipline?.
This is just vile. Whoever instituted those things deserves to be fired from their jobs and run out of town by the local parents. (After spending a day in one of their own little "cells")
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Oh Brother!
I see that we have another 'Western Separatist' group sprouting in Alberta. This time, it's Western Business and Taxpayers Association - brainchild of long-time Chandler associate David Crutcher. (Remember him? He was part of Chandler's attempt to take over the Calgary Egmont PC riding association, and he ran as a candidate for the Alberta Alliance party a few years ago)
Over at Bouquets of Gray, the author there has done an outstanding job of checking into the credentials of the executive council. (The B.C. chair is a real piece of work!)
On and off, I have watched the 'western separatist' movement since the late '70s when Doug Christie and the Western Canada Concept emerged. They pop up like dandelions in the lawn - for no apparently good reason, and somewhat at random.
What strikes me is that these groups are always a reactionary response to political events. However, politics is transient - today's crisis is tomorrow's history. Unlike Quebec separatism which has its roots in cultural identity, the 'western separatist movement' really doesn't have much for roots. Reactionary politics is mighty thin soil - people simply don't identify with it in the long run, and I haven't seen one of these groups yet even begin to try and build a cultural identity that Western Canadians can take to heart.
Over at Bouquets of Gray, the author there has done an outstanding job of checking into the credentials of the executive council. (The B.C. chair is a real piece of work!)
On and off, I have watched the 'western separatist' movement since the late '70s when Doug Christie and the Western Canada Concept emerged. They pop up like dandelions in the lawn - for no apparently good reason, and somewhat at random.
What strikes me is that these groups are always a reactionary response to political events. However, politics is transient - today's crisis is tomorrow's history. Unlike Quebec separatism which has its roots in cultural identity, the 'western separatist movement' really doesn't have much for roots. Reactionary politics is mighty thin soil - people simply don't identify with it in the long run, and I haven't seen one of these groups yet even begin to try and build a cultural identity that Western Canadians can take to heart.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Just How Does Escalating Violence Equal Progress???
I could swear that this general was spinning faster than a top to frame this as "progress" in Afghansistan:
In fact, what it really demonstrates is more or less what I've been claiming for some time, and reflects the Soviet experience in the region as well - namely that the foreign troops are serving primarily as a focal target for the various groups that would otherwise be competing for power.
That almost sounds good, but I suspect that Obama will find that once the American presence in Iraq begins to diminish, it will turn into a mire every bit as messy as Afghanistan - and for the same reasons. It would be naive in the extreme to think that the groups in Afghanistan and Iraq are not in communication with each other.
Speaking to reporters in Kandahar, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier warned that the surge of U.S. troops arriving in 2009 will likely prompt retaliation from the Taliban, particularly in Afghanistan's volatile southern region.
"There will be a higher level of violence in 2009 than there was in 2008. I wouldn't actually see a decrease in violence until perhaps the following year when we begin to gain traction with some of the capacity," said Gauthier, who has spent the last several days in meetings.
Gauthier's expectation for an eventual decrease in violence by 2010, however, may seem a little optimistic in the eyes of many analysts and even Afghans themselves, the CBC's David Common reported from Kandahar.
"For many people in Afghanistan, particularly in the south where it has been very violent, it's something that is difficult to believe because there has been so very little stability for some time," Common said.
Gauthier's comments come as conflict in Afghanistan is at its highest level since the U.S. invaded in 2001, followed shortly by Canada. The number of allied and Afghan troops, as well as civilians, killed in the conflict continues to rise.
In fact, what it really demonstrates is more or less what I've been claiming for some time, and reflects the Soviet experience in the region as well - namely that the foreign troops are serving primarily as a focal target for the various groups that would otherwise be competing for power.
In the U.S., president-elect Barack Obama has said he hopes to shift troops from Iraq and bolster the U.S. presence in Afghanistan in the upcoming year. Commanders there want at least 20,000 more troops, while Obama has pledged to send up to 12,000 to complement the more than 30,000 U.S. troops already stationed.
That almost sounds good, but I suspect that Obama will find that once the American presence in Iraq begins to diminish, it will turn into a mire every bit as messy as Afghanistan - and for the same reasons. It would be naive in the extreme to think that the groups in Afghanistan and Iraq are not in communication with each other.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
A Little Refresher ...
[Update 19:30]
It's even worse than I feared according a Dominion Institute commissioned survey:
The really sad part is how few people actually got the answers right:
If a majority had responded anything other than in the affirmative about the Governor General's powers given what's been in the news in the last few weeks, it would have made the results that much more disappointing.
What's even more vile than those results is the way that the HarperCon$ are preying on the ignorance of so many.
[/Update]
Since Canada's government seems intent on lying to the public about the concept of a government formed by a coalition, I thought it worth a few minutes to dismantle the outright lies that are being foisted upon us from the PMO.
One of the talking points that has been thrown out there is that an opposition coalition is somehow analogous to a coup d'état.
This is blatantly false. I'll refer briefly to the Wikipedia article on the subject for a practical working definition:
The first point here is that a coup d'état is unconstitutional. So, let us consider the constitutional realities that are at play right now in Canada for a moment.
Wikipedia provides a reasonable (but incomplete) summary of the Governor General's legal powers. If one reviews Section III of the Constitution Act of 1867, it clearly vests the executive power of government in the crown, represented in Canada by the Governor General:
This is the first part of the discussion that is important. The appointment and swearing in of the government in the House of Commons is performed by the Governor General on behalf of the crown. In a situation such as a minority parliament, the Governor General is presented with the potential for several different options - the party with the plurality of seats will likely be asked to form the government first, but as the King-Byng Affair of 1926 demonstrated, the Governor General may ask the leaders of other parties to form the government.
As far as I know, the coalition has taken no steps which undermine or violate the authority of the Governor General in this matter.
Now, let us move along to how the coalition has proceeded. Prior to Prime Minister Harper requesting, and being granted, a prorogation of parliament, there was to be a confidence vote in the House of Commons on Dec 12, 2008 on the motions related to the Fiscal Update that the Harper-led government had tabled in the House of Commons in late November.
In a Westminster parliament, a government that loses the confidence of the House of Commons collapses. The concept of a confidence motion is a recognized and accepted construct through which the sitting government will be tested. Although a government's collapse usually triggers a general election, it is not necessarily the case that happen. If the Governor General can be persuaded that one or more of the opposition parties can form a stable government for some period of time, the Governor General has the right to ask the opposition to form a government without triggering an election.
So, since the coalition was proceeding through a legitimate path to deprive the Harper government of the confidence of the House of Commons, it is hard to claim that a coalition is in any respect a 'coup d'état' in any meaningful way.
The second point that needs to be considered here is that in a Westminster Parliament, we elect our representatives, and we do not directly elect the Prime Minister, instead the Queen requests the person most likely to command the support of a majority in the House, normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, to form a government. In short, Stephen Harper sits in the PMO at "Her Majesty's Pleasure", and by a series of quirks of convention belonging to a system that has evolved over nearly 1,000 years.
Since the Harper Conservatives were so willing to form a coalition to replace Paul Martin's government in 2004, it is mind boggling that today we find the same group of people complaining that a coalition would somehow be an illegitimate government.
In October of 2008, Stephen Harper asked Canadians to decide on a parliament. We duly elected our representatives with the full expectation that they would find a way to make the resulting House of Commons work. If that takes the form of creating a coalition government, that is an eminently valid expression of democracy in Canada and in fact would represent a government that is doing what most Canadians would want - a degree of cooperation among the leaders in the House of Commons.
I suspect that Harper is in fact fomenting a crisis for one of two reasons - he either wants "another kick at the can" in the electoral forum to secure a majority, or he is trying to create a crisis big enough to justify re-opening the constitution. In the latter case, I fear greatly what he would do, for he has shown himself repeatedly to be autocratic rather than democratic.
It's even worse than I feared according a Dominion Institute commissioned survey:
The institute drew up four basic questions:
* Who is the head of state?
* How can Canada's system of government best be described?
* Do Canadians elect the prime minister directly?
* Can the Governor General nix a prime minister's request for a new election?
The really sad part is how few people actually got the answers right:
About 75 per cent of Canadians believe incorrectly the prime minister or the Governor General is head of state, ...
Given a choice how best to describe the system of government, 25 per cent of those surveyed decided on a "co-operative assembly" while 17 per cent opted for a "representative republic."
Canada is neither. Only 59 per cent picked correctly — constitutional monarchy.
In a similar vein, 51 per cent wrongly agreed that Canadians elect the prime minister directly.
...
A full 90 per cent responded correctly that the Governor General does have the power, which Jean may yet be called on to wield if the opposition coalition does defeat the government with a vote in the Commons.
If a majority had responded anything other than in the affirmative about the Governor General's powers given what's been in the news in the last few weeks, it would have made the results that much more disappointing.
What's even more vile than those results is the way that the HarperCon$ are preying on the ignorance of so many.
[/Update]
Since Canada's government seems intent on lying to the public about the concept of a government formed by a coalition, I thought it worth a few minutes to dismantle the outright lies that are being foisted upon us from the PMO.
One of the talking points that has been thrown out there is that an opposition coalition is somehow analogous to a coup d'état.
This is blatantly false. I'll refer briefly to the Wikipedia article on the subject for a practical working definition:
a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.
The first point here is that a coup d'état is unconstitutional. So, let us consider the constitutional realities that are at play right now in Canada for a moment.
Wikipedia provides a reasonable (but incomplete) summary of the Governor General's legal powers. If one reviews Section III of the Constitution Act of 1867, it clearly vests the executive power of government in the crown, represented in Canada by the Governor General:
9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.
This is the first part of the discussion that is important. The appointment and swearing in of the government in the House of Commons is performed by the Governor General on behalf of the crown. In a situation such as a minority parliament, the Governor General is presented with the potential for several different options - the party with the plurality of seats will likely be asked to form the government first, but as the King-Byng Affair of 1926 demonstrated, the Governor General may ask the leaders of other parties to form the government.
As far as I know, the coalition has taken no steps which undermine or violate the authority of the Governor General in this matter.
Now, let us move along to how the coalition has proceeded. Prior to Prime Minister Harper requesting, and being granted, a prorogation of parliament, there was to be a confidence vote in the House of Commons on Dec 12, 2008 on the motions related to the Fiscal Update that the Harper-led government had tabled in the House of Commons in late November.
In a Westminster parliament, a government that loses the confidence of the House of Commons collapses. The concept of a confidence motion is a recognized and accepted construct through which the sitting government will be tested. Although a government's collapse usually triggers a general election, it is not necessarily the case that happen. If the Governor General can be persuaded that one or more of the opposition parties can form a stable government for some period of time, the Governor General has the right to ask the opposition to form a government without triggering an election.
So, since the coalition was proceeding through a legitimate path to deprive the Harper government of the confidence of the House of Commons, it is hard to claim that a coalition is in any respect a 'coup d'état' in any meaningful way.
The second point that needs to be considered here is that in a Westminster Parliament, we elect our representatives, and we do not directly elect the Prime Minister, instead the Queen requests the person most likely to command the support of a majority in the House, normally the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, to form a government. In short, Stephen Harper sits in the PMO at "Her Majesty's Pleasure", and by a series of quirks of convention belonging to a system that has evolved over nearly 1,000 years.
Since the Harper Conservatives were so willing to form a coalition to replace Paul Martin's government in 2004, it is mind boggling that today we find the same group of people complaining that a coalition would somehow be an illegitimate government.
In October of 2008, Stephen Harper asked Canadians to decide on a parliament. We duly elected our representatives with the full expectation that they would find a way to make the resulting House of Commons work. If that takes the form of creating a coalition government, that is an eminently valid expression of democracy in Canada and in fact would represent a government that is doing what most Canadians would want - a degree of cooperation among the leaders in the House of Commons.
I suspect that Harper is in fact fomenting a crisis for one of two reasons - he either wants "another kick at the can" in the electoral forum to secure a majority, or he is trying to create a crisis big enough to justify re-opening the constitution. In the latter case, I fear greatly what he would do, for he has shown himself repeatedly to be autocratic rather than democratic.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Whipping Girl - Commentary II
I've tried to write this commentary several times, and each time that I have written it, I have found myself getting bogged down in the details and quid pro quos.
Through to Chapter 7, Serano speaks quite harshly of the treatment that a lot of transsexuals experience at the hands of therapists. She comes very close to advocating for removal of the condition entirely from the DSM, but stops just short of that.
Let me start off by saying that I am sympathetic to those who have experienced the kind of hostile treatment that Serano describes, and has often been attributed to the dubious methodology of people who follow J. Michael Bailey's theories. There is nothing more damaging to someone's sense of self than finding a therapist who claims that they are lying at every turn.
However, I disagree quite strongly with the idea of simply removing transsexualism from the DSM. Transsexualism is a somewhat unique condition in the world of mental health concerns. Unlike a lot of situations that lead people to seek out a therapist's help in life, the transsexual's situation actually will ultimately lead to bringing the services of multiple professionals into the picture - including psychologists, physicians and surgeons; but also can involve lawyers, public service officials and other individuals. There can be little question that some kind of common lexicon is useful in facilitating communication between these varied professionals.
The physician that is prescribing hormone therapy may be quite comfortable monitoring the response of the body's endocrine system to the hormones, but may well not feel that he or she has the appropriate training and background to understand whether the patient is adapting to the changes that the hormones bring with them appropriately. When one considers the legal and ethical bindings placed upon medical practitioners, it should come as no great surprise that many are reluctant to get involved in a situation that they do not feel they understand.
Quite rightly, the WPATH Standards of Care demands that the various professionals involved in an individual's transition be in regular communication with each other.
As Radha points out in her post 'Gaming Therapists, Gaming Ourselves, the therapy process can be a catalyst for learning a great deal about oneself. A positive relationship with a therapist can be an amazingly constructive process - one which enables an person to move beyond their immediate assumptions about themselves and to be completely honest with themselves - both in terms of their strengths and weaknesses (and yes, there is an amazing amount of strength to be found in the vulnerability of admitting to your own failings - the reality of that is left as an exercise to the reader).
I would like to see the definition of transsexualism (or more broadly transgenderism) in the DSM to continue to evolve. In the DSM IV, it is only in its third incarnation, and it has morphed considerably from the original definitions in the DSM II(?), mostly in response to the emergence of more data that has broadened the range of experiences that clients have described.
It is unfortunate that there are so many who mistakenly assume that the presence of a diagnostic category in the DSM means that someone is 'ill'. A more reasonable view of the DSM is that it describes psychological conditions - a lexicon more than anything else. In fact, if one peruses the chapters of the DSM for a while, it is not difficult to understand that it contains a great many conditions which we would agree do not constitute a serious impairment of an individual's ability to function, but may need to be described in order to draw a complete picture of the factors an individual is facing. Here, I believe the APA and related professional bodies have a significant amount of 'marketing' work to do. Society still bears a surprising degree of fear and stigma to 'mental illness', and the professional societies involved have not been very successful in breaking that pattern. One of the key things they could - and should - do is spend some time explaining the DSM's purpose and intentions in layman's terms. (There are only a few of us outside the mental health world willing - or able - to wade through the dense terminology of that book's prefaces)
The transsexual bears a responsibility to find a therapist that they can work with. We are all individuals, and it is no surprise that not everybody can work effectively with every therapist. Therapists and medical professionals are responsible for ensuring that they become educated about the treatment of transsexuals - the transsexual should not be the person trying to educate the professionals; and similarly, finding a therapist should not be an 'underground experience'. Too few therapists publicize that they are willing and experienced with transfolk, which often makes the process of finding a therapist traumatic in its own right.
Those professionals who see themselves as 'gatekeepers' rather than as partners with their clients need to adjust their perspective. In the case of transsexuals, the client is usually quite aware of their condition and what they need to achieve. Gatekeepers are not what is needed - constructive help is. Sometimes that may mean pointing out the 'cracks' in the patient's plans or timelines; but more often than not, it means helping the patient piece together the resources they need.
Through to Chapter 7, Serano speaks quite harshly of the treatment that a lot of transsexuals experience at the hands of therapists. She comes very close to advocating for removal of the condition entirely from the DSM, but stops just short of that.
Let me start off by saying that I am sympathetic to those who have experienced the kind of hostile treatment that Serano describes, and has often been attributed to the dubious methodology of people who follow J. Michael Bailey's theories. There is nothing more damaging to someone's sense of self than finding a therapist who claims that they are lying at every turn.
However, I disagree quite strongly with the idea of simply removing transsexualism from the DSM. Transsexualism is a somewhat unique condition in the world of mental health concerns. Unlike a lot of situations that lead people to seek out a therapist's help in life, the transsexual's situation actually will ultimately lead to bringing the services of multiple professionals into the picture - including psychologists, physicians and surgeons; but also can involve lawyers, public service officials and other individuals. There can be little question that some kind of common lexicon is useful in facilitating communication between these varied professionals.
The physician that is prescribing hormone therapy may be quite comfortable monitoring the response of the body's endocrine system to the hormones, but may well not feel that he or she has the appropriate training and background to understand whether the patient is adapting to the changes that the hormones bring with them appropriately. When one considers the legal and ethical bindings placed upon medical practitioners, it should come as no great surprise that many are reluctant to get involved in a situation that they do not feel they understand.
Quite rightly, the WPATH Standards of Care demands that the various professionals involved in an individual's transition be in regular communication with each other.
As Radha points out in her post 'Gaming Therapists, Gaming Ourselves, the therapy process can be a catalyst for learning a great deal about oneself. A positive relationship with a therapist can be an amazingly constructive process - one which enables an person to move beyond their immediate assumptions about themselves and to be completely honest with themselves - both in terms of their strengths and weaknesses (and yes, there is an amazing amount of strength to be found in the vulnerability of admitting to your own failings - the reality of that is left as an exercise to the reader).
I would like to see the definition of transsexualism (or more broadly transgenderism) in the DSM to continue to evolve. In the DSM IV, it is only in its third incarnation, and it has morphed considerably from the original definitions in the DSM II(?), mostly in response to the emergence of more data that has broadened the range of experiences that clients have described.
It is unfortunate that there are so many who mistakenly assume that the presence of a diagnostic category in the DSM means that someone is 'ill'. A more reasonable view of the DSM is that it describes psychological conditions - a lexicon more than anything else. In fact, if one peruses the chapters of the DSM for a while, it is not difficult to understand that it contains a great many conditions which we would agree do not constitute a serious impairment of an individual's ability to function, but may need to be described in order to draw a complete picture of the factors an individual is facing. Here, I believe the APA and related professional bodies have a significant amount of 'marketing' work to do. Society still bears a surprising degree of fear and stigma to 'mental illness', and the professional societies involved have not been very successful in breaking that pattern. One of the key things they could - and should - do is spend some time explaining the DSM's purpose and intentions in layman's terms. (There are only a few of us outside the mental health world willing - or able - to wade through the dense terminology of that book's prefaces)
The transsexual bears a responsibility to find a therapist that they can work with. We are all individuals, and it is no surprise that not everybody can work effectively with every therapist. Therapists and medical professionals are responsible for ensuring that they become educated about the treatment of transsexuals - the transsexual should not be the person trying to educate the professionals; and similarly, finding a therapist should not be an 'underground experience'. Too few therapists publicize that they are willing and experienced with transfolk, which often makes the process of finding a therapist traumatic in its own right.
Those professionals who see themselves as 'gatekeepers' rather than as partners with their clients need to adjust their perspective. In the case of transsexuals, the client is usually quite aware of their condition and what they need to achieve. Gatekeepers are not what is needed - constructive help is. Sometimes that may mean pointing out the 'cracks' in the patient's plans or timelines; but more often than not, it means helping the patient piece together the resources they need.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Is GM Headed For Breakup?
With the latest US bridge financing for the 'Big 3' dead on the Senate floor, one has to wonder what will become of them.
Chrysler will shrink to a shadow of its former self. (Those old enough to remember their show rooms in the early 80s will remember walking into a room full of K-platform cars and leftovers from the mid-70s. This time around, I suspect the remains will include a minivan, and possibly something based on a Mitsubishi platform ... and not much else.
GM on the other hand could be headed for a fate not unlike what happened to AT&T/Bell in the early 80s. GM has a couple of brands that I suspect will survive in some form or anther. I can see Chevrolet, Pontiac and Cadillac remaining fairly intact; Saturn will likely become a brand used to label whatever they can import from Europe and Korea. (Not unlike GM's ill-fated "Passport" and "Geo" brands - hopefully better managed than that...)
Buick will vanish - at least in North America, and I suspect the 'GMC' branded trucks will also go away - being otherwise identical to their Chevrolet-branded cousins.
Just at a guess, we'll see the following companies emerge from a GM bankruptcy in North America ("MiniGeMs"?):
1. Chevrolet - Mostly producing family cars and light trucks
2. Pontiac - Will try to position itself as a "near luxury" brand competing with Acura
3. Cadillac - Will continue to be Cadillac
4. Saturn - Will mostly become a dealership network selling rebranded Opel product.
No speculation on what will happen with their holdings in Europe and Asia - I simply don't know enough of GM's current holdings over there
All of those companies will be producing in much reduced volumes from today, and I expect their lineups to be trimmed dramatically.
Any guesses as to what shape GM takes on after a bankruptcy filing is, of course, purely hypothetical - based far more in my imaginings than anything even remotely real.
What the impact of a dramatic reshaping will be on the US and Canadian economies will be is hard to say - I'd have to imagine that it will be messy in the short term until the new companies start to take shape and fill the gaps. I expect the stock markets to take a nosedive on this, not because it's warranted, but because the stock markets are run more on emotion than on anything resembling rationality. Sit back, and hold on.
Chrysler will shrink to a shadow of its former self. (Those old enough to remember their show rooms in the early 80s will remember walking into a room full of K-platform cars and leftovers from the mid-70s. This time around, I suspect the remains will include a minivan, and possibly something based on a Mitsubishi platform ... and not much else.
GM on the other hand could be headed for a fate not unlike what happened to AT&T/Bell in the early 80s. GM has a couple of brands that I suspect will survive in some form or anther. I can see Chevrolet, Pontiac and Cadillac remaining fairly intact; Saturn will likely become a brand used to label whatever they can import from Europe and Korea. (Not unlike GM's ill-fated "Passport" and "Geo" brands - hopefully better managed than that...)
Buick will vanish - at least in North America, and I suspect the 'GMC' branded trucks will also go away - being otherwise identical to their Chevrolet-branded cousins.
Just at a guess, we'll see the following companies emerge from a GM bankruptcy in North America ("MiniGeMs"?):
1. Chevrolet - Mostly producing family cars and light trucks
2. Pontiac - Will try to position itself as a "near luxury" brand competing with Acura
3. Cadillac - Will continue to be Cadillac
4. Saturn - Will mostly become a dealership network selling rebranded Opel product.
No speculation on what will happen with their holdings in Europe and Asia - I simply don't know enough of GM's current holdings over there
All of those companies will be producing in much reduced volumes from today, and I expect their lineups to be trimmed dramatically.
Any guesses as to what shape GM takes on after a bankruptcy filing is, of course, purely hypothetical - based far more in my imaginings than anything even remotely real.
What the impact of a dramatic reshaping will be on the US and Canadian economies will be is hard to say - I'd have to imagine that it will be messy in the short term until the new companies start to take shape and fill the gaps. I expect the stock markets to take a nosedive on this, not because it's warranted, but because the stock markets are run more on emotion than on anything resembling rationality. Sit back, and hold on.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
So Much For Harper's "Principles"
For a man who has been on a tirade about senate reform for years, it's amazing to me how quickly Harper lowers himself to tradition when he's suddenly under pressure.
Of course, in typical HarperCon fashion, it's all the opposition's fault:
I see ... so Harper's round of appointing senators (none of whom will have been elected - in spite of his previous arguments that they should be voted on by the citizens) is really all out of fear of the "Evil Coalition"™ - uh huh. I'll put better odds on Harper is simply being dishonest with Canadians, and continuing to play his petty partisan games, all rooted in his ideology.
Just as his repeated suspensions of parliament are anti-democratic, so is his approach to Senate Reform - which appears now to be just empty words.
Of course, in typical HarperCon fashion, it's all the opposition's fault:
The Tories want to avoid the possibility that the 105-member Senate gets filled with members opposed to Senate reform -- or with separatist leanings.
"The Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition has indicated it plans to fill the Senate with coalition members and this includes the prospect of appointing senators who do not believe in Canadian unity," the official said.
I see ... so Harper's round of appointing senators (none of whom will have been elected - in spite of his previous arguments that they should be voted on by the citizens) is really all out of fear of the "Evil Coalition"™ - uh huh. I'll put better odds on Harper is simply being dishonest with Canadians, and continuing to play his petty partisan games, all rooted in his ideology.
Just as his repeated suspensions of parliament are anti-democratic, so is his approach to Senate Reform - which appears now to be just empty words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)