Daily Archives: 2/22/2007
The Boy Harper Finds New Low
| 2/22/2007 | Posted by Patti under Canadian News, Canadian Politics, Ethics, Harper, War on Terror |
Harper sank to a new low yesterday in the House of Commons when he launched a smear at Liberal MP Navdeep Bain and his father-in-law who the Vancouver Sun is reporting was to be on the potential list of witnesses to be brought before an investigative hearing into the downing of the Air India flight in the 80′s.
The smear came in response to a question that was being put to him by Liberal leader Dion about Harper’s meddling with the judicial appointment process. It does appear that the boy was attempting to avoid answering questions on one of his dictatorship moves and created a firestorm over another issue that truly is worthy of serious and reasoned debate, not one of attacks and slurs.
At issue is two clauses in the Anti-Terrorism legislation that was passed in the wake of 9/11. One clause allows for ‘preventative arrest’ of people that law enforcement agencies believe is or could be involved in an imminent terrorist activity and the other allows for investigative hearings where witnesses could be compelled to testify. Both of the clauses were controversial amongst the Liberals when they passed the legislation and they appear to be just as controversial now.
The clauses are set to expire March 1st if the House doesn’t vote to extend them. The sunset provision was built into the clauses at the time the legislation was enacted because of their controversial nature and the concerns about the potential for abuse of civil liberties by police. The clauses have yet to be used and at this point the Liberal stand is against extending them.
I have to admit to some ambivalence on the issue of extending the clauses.
The social justice part of me leans towards not extending them because they do leave too much power in the hands of law enforcement agencies and we’ve seen what them and an agenda can do to innocent people. Out of necessity, the definition of ‘terrorism’ is rather broad which adds to the potential for abuse of the clauses.
Another part of me looks at the fact that the clauses have not been invoked which provides some hope that they would not be abused. I would be wearing rose coloured glasses not to realize that there are situations when police have a pretty strong sense that someone is about to or is involved in some criminal activity which they are powerless to prevent in the absence of appropriate evidence in order to arrest the suspect. So, the concept of preventative arrest has it’s benefit if applied prudently.
I have zero ambivalence about the boy’s smearing though.
He was wrong and had he made the same statements outside of the House, he could be finding himself facing some legal ramifications. A reading of the article in the Vancouver Sun gives little indication as to what exactly a hearing would expect to be exploring with Darshan Singh Saini (Bain’s father-in-law) or if he could potentially be implicated in the plot.
The boy Harper was attempting to link the potential witness of Saini to a hearing that will not take place should the anti-terrorism clauses expire next week to the reason that the Liberals have taken a stance opposite to the stand they took five years ago when the laws were passed.
That is somewhat typical of the low brow thinking of Harper. A lot has changed in five years, not the least of which is the makeup and leadership of the Liberal party which had been divided in the first place on the issue. We also have a minority government in place that demonstrates a very black and white thinking process towards its own right wing ideology. The Liberals as the Official Opposition needs to be the party of sober second thought.
Mike over at Rational Reasons puts the issue rather well:
It is quite clear that Stephen Harper will spread any myth, any lie, any outrageous conspiracy theory as long as he thinks it will get him his precious majority. God help us all then.
….
Stephen Harper has demonstrated he has no honour, no morals, no ethics and no scruples. He does not deserve to be president of a student’s council, let alone Prime Minister of Canada. Frankly, none of them do, but Harper most especially.
Well expressed Mike.
Eugene over at LE REVUE GAUCHE puts forth his argument that Harper is not and never will be a statesman or parliamentarian:
But pompous megalomaniac he is Harper could not resist, nor could he trust anyone else to deliver his hit on Dion and the Liberals.And so he showed himself to be what he really is, an Opposition Leader. Not a Prime Minister.
And what he was today was an Opposition Leader, a strong one, one who is gaining in the polls. And thus one doomed by his limitations of office, and personality, to act like an Opposition Leader rather than as a PM. Holding on to power with a minority, but acting like you are majority has won Harper the polling support of some Canadians.
But in reality what the recent polls have shown is that he is far better as Leader of the Opposition than Dion is.
And that is what he confirmed today. He does not have the stuff to be PM. He is no statesman, and no parliamentarian.
I agree with Eugene, the boy has zero class. He strikes me as someone who either was the schoolyard bully or was bullied and is now getting his revenge on the whole country. Course, when you vote for a red-neck you get low brow.
The final word goes to Ekonoline:
Harper is a chameleon of sorts, fashioning himself as a moderate conservative while simultaneously sinking to any low to gain political advantage. Three years ago, he accused Paul Martin of supporting child pornography. How low can he go? I seem to recall learning in my high school civics class that Canada is a democratic country, where slanderous allegations cannot be simply thrown about at will. Harper would do well to keep that principle in mind. Innocent until proven guilty, Stephen, innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty indeed.
Ontario Eyes Banning Old Style Lightbulbs
| 2/22/2007 | Posted by Patti under Canadian News |
The Ontario government is considering following the example of Australia and banning old-style lightbulbs. The move would make the compact florescents the standard for lightbulbs. Although more expensive to purchase the bulbs than the old style bulbs, the florescents do have some advantages.
I have them in most of my lamps in the house and have done so for at least four or five years. I’ve yet to have to replace any of the bulbs which means that while I spent five or six bucks to buy the bulbs, that cost has now been spread over four or five years or however many more there is before I need to replace them.
Mind you, I’m reasonable prudent about my use of lights. I have enough windows in the house that during daylight hours, I don’t have lights on and when they are needed, I usually only have one light on at a time.
One thing I have noticed about these bulbs is they actually do seem to throw a much brighter light than conventional bulbs at a much lower wattage which means I’m actually getting more for less in the long run. The only question in my mind is what’s holding the government up? Time’s a wasting Dalton.
Follow Me!