Iggy stands and watches while Harper kicks the living crap out of democracy
We get 8 years or so of hyper-partisan posturing over the largely pointless long-gun registry debate (it centred around the costs of the registry, which were mostly up-front and couldn't be recovered), but when it comes to two of the very most important issues facing Canada, Climate Change and Afghanistan, we get a mailed-in announcement from Korea and the killing of a twice-passed Commons bill in the unelected senate. To say this was a bad week for democracy in Canada would be an understatement. It was the worst I can remember. This is exactly why people don't vote. If people had a clear choice, two contrasting leaders and visions and most importantly, track records, then that would be one thing. The Liberals say they care about democracy. They say they care about the environment and climate change, but when Harper steps up to kick the crap out of these values, they are nowhere to be found. Or more precisely, they are standing by and watching. If Harper is democracy's bully, then the Liberals are the bystander. This is why so many Liberal Senators didn't show up to support the bill. This is why they refused to force the needed debate on the future of the Afghanistan mission. Regardless of their support of the concept of a training mission, is it not the responsibility of the official opposition to ensure that the details of important decisions like, say life or death ones, are properly and openly debated? In Clive Doucet's fascinating book, Urban Meltdown, he makes the case that the two major parties aren't much different from each other on the issues that really matter like, say, climate change and foreign policy. So they differentiate themselves by generating lots of rhetoric on hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage and, of course, gun control. Fascinating indeed. It is high time someone stands up to the bully. A Green-NDP coalition perhaps? Democracy demands some serious action here.
- Trevor James Rodie's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
Michael Ignatieff is a
Michael Ignatieff is a history professor at Harvard, Mass. Working in the U.S. I quickly learned that the people with management power are, with very few exceptions, Republican. If they are independently wealthy, have a lot of connections (markers to call), have a 'safe' government job, or have no career ambitions, then they can afford to be ‘Democrats’ vocally. I understood immediately, that although Americans can be liberal-Democrats providing they have enough back-up, ‘Aliens’ (in the U.S. that means non-American citizens) will be totally marginalized if they don’t back the right-wing view of the world, 100%.
He has acclimated to the belief that the U.S. has the moral obligation to police the world for the betterment of humankind with its military. If he didn’t he would have been black-balled as a Canadian ‘socialist’. (Americans are taught that Canadians are ALL; both French and socialists). To survive, individuals adapt to their environment or become extinct. He backs the tar-sands because it reduces American’s dependence on foreign oil. He backs the wars in the middle-east, including torture, because being for ‘peace’ is being a ‘traitor’, ‘not supporting the troops’. For most practical purposes he is an intellectualized version of George W. Bush and Stephen Harper with a few minor exceptions.
He was quite relieved to have the mission in Afghanistan extended and to see the climate change bill squashed while appearing to keep his hands clean. He is not a Liberal in any sense of the word, except that he has an education and is well-spoken.
Don't take my word for it, look at his writings: (See: 'The Lesser Evil Approach' included at link below,)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff#University_professor.2C_writer.2C_broadcaster