Saskboy hepped me to the existence of this Analysis of Mr. Yves Cote's cover-up of stephen harper's election fraud, by Steven Shrybman. (Shrybman was the lawyer for the Council of Canadians' effort to overturn six election results due to electoral irregularities.)
Now, it's pretty clear that the harpercon scum violated our election laws thousands of times, and drove a stake through the integrity of our entire political system. This analysis makes that very clear. Would I be able to stand in front of the Supreme Court and argue this 100%? No. I can't anticipate every crazy, desperate angle some full-time political operatives can dream up over years and years.
But to me, there's one thing ironclad about what makes's Cote's work a worthless pile of shit. The criminally stupid Supreme Court ruling on the Etobicoke-Centre election challenge argued that in the absence of any evidence of malice, it is best to decide that the existence of more ballots than there are names of people who voted on the voters' list doesn't disqualify an election. It should be decided that those unaccounted ballots were put there in good faith and we shouldn't inconvenience people with a second election just because we don't have a fucking clue who really won the first one.
If I was in charge of this country I would have a goddamned inquiry into THAT particular bit of corruption and insanity. Because as important as the independence of the judiciary is, the integrity of the electoral process is even more important. And the four justices who signed their names to that ridiculous decision are either corrupt partisan hacks, or they're too fucking stupid to conceive of the damage they have done to our democracy. Either way, they're unfit for their positions and I would have them removed.
But they did have one semi-excuse for their asinine ruling. The Council of Canadians hadn't yet had their day in court. And when they did, the federal court judge ruled that there HAD been a concerted campaign of electoral fraud, centered around the use of the Conservative Party's CIMS database. He could not say whether these irregularities affected the outcome therefore he did not overturn the election results. I said at the time:
Now, it's pretty clear that the harpercon scum violated our election laws thousands of times, and drove a stake through the integrity of our entire political system. This analysis makes that very clear. Would I be able to stand in front of the Supreme Court and argue this 100%? No. I can't anticipate every crazy, desperate angle some full-time political operatives can dream up over years and years.
But to me, there's one thing ironclad about what makes's Cote's work a worthless pile of shit. The criminally stupid Supreme Court ruling on the Etobicoke-Centre election challenge argued that in the absence of any evidence of malice, it is best to decide that the existence of more ballots than there are names of people who voted on the voters' list doesn't disqualify an election. It should be decided that those unaccounted ballots were put there in good faith and we shouldn't inconvenience people with a second election just because we don't have a fucking clue who really won the first one.
If I was in charge of this country I would have a goddamned inquiry into THAT particular bit of corruption and insanity. Because as important as the independence of the judiciary is, the integrity of the electoral process is even more important. And the four justices who signed their names to that ridiculous decision are either corrupt partisan hacks, or they're too fucking stupid to conceive of the damage they have done to our democracy. Either way, they're unfit for their positions and I would have them removed.
But they did have one semi-excuse for their asinine ruling. The Council of Canadians hadn't yet had their day in court. And when they did, the federal court judge ruled that there HAD been a concerted campaign of electoral fraud, centered around the use of the Conservative Party's CIMS database. He could not say whether these irregularities affected the outcome therefore he did not overturn the election results. I said at the time:
Perhaps if the CoC's case had been heard before the challenge to Etobicoke-Centre, the corrupted Justices in the majority would have been forced to mitigate their asinine reasoning by accepting the reality that the 2011 federal election was rife with unprecedented fraud and vote-suppression efforts.But Yves Cote has no such excuse, as Shrybman makes very clear. Cote's work is part of a cover-up. A blatant cover-up. This country is no longer even a pseudo, or quasi-democracy. It is a corrupt petro-state, full of corrupt institutions, inhabited by cowardly, craven hacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment