Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Total, Unrelenting Hypocrisy of stephen harper

In this post at "Democracy Under Fire," the blogger "rural" takes issue with stephen harper's statement:
"The objective of these attacks was to instil fear and panic in our country, as I said yesterday, Canadians will not be intimidated. Here we are, in our seats, in our chamber, in the very heart of our democracy.
 The House of Commons is not the heart of our democracy, "rural" says:
Parliament may be the symbolic home of our democracy but the true heart of democracy rests with the citizens across this vast country. It is entrusted in those individuals that we elect to protect and enhance it who meet in that place to hold the current government, no matter what particular flavor it currently enjoys, to account and to participate in the process of deciding upon the rules by which out society lives by. It is those citizens who make sure that they take the time to select those individuals who are placed before us as possible representatives every few years. It is within those that take notice of the debates and decisions emerging from 'that place' and make their views know as best they can to an ever less receptive group of politicians. The heart of a country’s democracy lays within its citizens, whether they look after it or not is another matter entirely.
And there is a lot of truth to that. But what struck me about the quote, was that even if you conceded harper his point, it only makes him look like an even bigger shit-head.

For the fact of the matter is that stephen harper is the only prime minister in the history of the Westminster system of Parliament to have ever been found in contempt of the legislature. And this was not some partisan verdict delivered by a "kangaroo court." Anyone who says that is an idiot. A "kangaroo court" is one that is illegitimate and/or unfair. The Speaker's decision and the parliamentary Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee that decided the matter were both the legitimate means by which such matters are decided. So there's that. Second of all, the opposition parties that found him in contempt were behind the Conservatives in the polls when they came to their decision and when they put it into practical effect by voting no confidence in harper's government. Also, the Liberal Party of Canada had made enormous efforts to avoid toppling harper's government in the past, and so, to a lesser extent, did the NDP. But nonetheless, they felt they had to do so at that point.

They did so, as everyone well knows, because harper was refusing to provide Parliament with very basic information that, as everyone knows, was the experts' cost estimates for the government's policies. In harper's version of "democracy" the people's representatives shouldn't expect to know what the government's policies will cost before they approve of them.

Worse, in harper's democracy, the people's representatives should be happy with oral assurances that turn out to be complete lies.

When it comes to written evidence, it has to be remembered that, in the Bev Oda scandal, harper was fine with public documents being altered after the fact to say the opposite of their original intention. And, he would stand by a minister found to have lied repeatedly to Parliament about this.

None of this is new. And it remains to our great shame, our complete incapacity as a nation to have done anything substantial about it. What is new is harper having the unmitigated gall to speak of Parliament as "the heart of our democracy" after his serial abuses of it.

It got worse obviously. Ignatieff and Layton (and Duceppe) did what they had to do and voted down harper's government. In the subsequent election, as we all know, the Conservative Party of Canada's voter database was abused in a concerted, widespread campaign of election fraud, that might have made the difference between harper having received a minority or a majority government. harper appeared strangely unconcerned about the undisputed abuse of his party's resources for such sleazy behaviour, refusing to even meet with Elections Canada to discuss the matter.

And, as we all know, under the sniveling toad Pierre Poilievre, the Conservatives used their majority to ram through a bill that will make it easier for them to commit fraud in the future.

So, Parliament is "the heart of our democracy," but if you gain control of it through fraud, if you STEAL it, that's not a matter for concern.

What makes Parliament "the heart of our democracy" then? Well, yes, the government proposes laws, and then the people's representatives examine them closely and debate their merits. Part of this extended process is to allow the general public to know about, and sometimes, give their opinion about the proposed laws.

But let's cut to the chase here about stephen harper's version of democracy: Political parties should break every rule to get elected. They should break election finance laws (so that the rich and/or the corrupt can have an unfair advantage over everyone else) and they should just do whatever it takes to steal elections.

Then, having stolen a majority in the House of Commons, the government party packs its legislation into massive omnibus bills that defy informed discussion and debate, and rams them through the legislature so that even the insufficient amount of time available to provide oversight to the process becomes shortened. It doesn't matter anyway, because harper sees no need to provide accurate, or even truthful information about his proposed policies. he will lie in the House and he will lie on paper about his proposals.

This speaks only to his opinions about Parliament as "the heart of our democracy." I'm not even going to talk about harper's contempt for our rights as citizens or even human beings.

But, again, we tolerate this monster. Nobody of any stature appears able to present this true picture of this stupid asshole and create a movement to destroy him. Fucking Mulcair and Trudeau hugged the creature after the schizophrenic with the rifle got into the Parliament building.

Last thing about words and stephen harper: "We will not be intimidated."

How the fuck does hiding in a broom closet not count as "intimidated"? Not to say that I would definitely have stood my ground.  Or that security details weren't being responsible in putting the (fraudulent) prime minister in a safe place. But, sorry, hiding in a broom closet is definitely being "intimidated." I mean, did the turd compose those words WHILE he was hiding in the broom closet?

And, anyway, I should hope a country of 35 million people aren't intimidated by lone individuals with hunting rifles or driving around in cars. At least not to the point of surrendering their rights to an anti-democratic, corrupt thuggish fraud.


greg said...

Okay, Harper will be passing this legislation where you can't support ISIS, or can't agree with their aims. So basically, from now on if I say anything that criticizes Israel, that will be seen as a threat. I suppose if I say I support Hamas, I'll be in prison for a couple of years and then have to wear an ankle bracelet. I hope it doesn't clash.

thwap said...

We'll all have a chance to have our say as this particular bill is debated in the legislature and in committee .... oh wait.