Steven Harper wants to shut down
parliament just because he does not agree with it.
Some say this is unprecedented.
In fact, Harper is following
parliamentary tradition.
Consider the following precedents:
1629 King Charles I in England
1799 Napoleon in France
1913: Victoriano Huerta in Mexico
1933: Adolf Hitler in Germany
1936 Fransisco Franco in Spain
1939: Benito Mussolini in Italy
1973: Augusto Pinochet in Chile
2008: Steven Harper in Canada
1975 Indira Gandhi in India
1999 Perez Musharaff in Pakistan
ROFL!
Sean, PLEASE use this as a letter to the editor to every frickin daily out there! (or at least on their website comments)
Yes. More please.
This headline says it all:
"Canadian leader shuts Parliament to keep power"
And that article is from the AP wire. That's gonna spread far and wide.
---------------------------------------------------------
I should change my handle from Bush is gone happy happy happy to
Harper is staying %$#^%$ %$#^$# %$T%$!!!
I adapted my post and sent it to a number of letters to the editor addresses...
And I CC'ed it to Brian Topp.... hope you don't mind!
Please go ahead-- and thanks!
This is a groovy thread. I'm leaving it open and tagging it for the coalition page!
looks like a Liberal read your post Sean.....
from the star
Nor was Hitler too far a stretch as a metaphor for the evil occurring on Parliament Hill.Toronto Liberal MP Derek Lee found two historic precedents in Stephen Harper's request to suspend Parliament, and both ended badly.
First was a reference to the infamous 1933 arson which destroyed the German parliament building, the Reichstag.
"The whole thing (is) of an executive government kneecapping Parliament," Lee said. "In that case they burned the Reichstag, they set it on fire, the Nazis, so that it could not meet and responsible government was lost."
He wasn't finished, noting that King Charles I also sought to dissolve Parliament in his day, which was in the 1600s.
`The last time that happened in a conspicuous way, Parliament hung the King," he pointed out.
Actually Charles was beheaded in 1649.
Stephen Harper, March 13, 2006. Exact quote.
"There will be some who want to cut and run, but cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way"
Great topic, I'm definitely going to be spreading this around.
This fight started with the attempt by the Harper Government to cut funding to the other political parties.
I know, officially, the Conservatives proposed to cut funding to all political parties
However, before they did this, they appointed 16 new ministers to cabinet.
Each of those 16 newly minted cabinet ministers has an office and staff. These new staffers are government employees paid for with taxpayer dollars. Each of these new staffers work for and report to the cabinet minister and therefore, by extension, to the Conservative Party of Canada. This represents several million dollars of research and preparation work that would otherwise have to be paid for by the Conservative Party.
Having done this, the Conservatives then proposed to cut off funding to the other political parties.
So, these aren't two different and seemingly contradictory policies. They are components of a common policy that is intended to ensure that only the governing party has access to government funding and that only the governing party has the resources necessary to ensure its voice is heard.
The Conservatives chose to use the economic crisis rather than deal with it. To quote a former Harris cabinet minister "a useful crisis".
Sean In Ottawa can you send your letter to https://secure.therecord.com/NASApp/CFORMApp/letter_kwr.jsp
Maybe Harper should take note of what happened to many of those leaders.
Maybe Harper should take note of what happened to many of those leaders.
Ummm... remind me now, how many of them retired and died in bed???
I think it was Charles I who first came up with the idea of proroguing parliament to avoid unpleasant realities. He had a head for this sort of thing.
I did send it to the record.
I would never want to wish the end of any Canadian public figure but as I read some of these posts and think about Steven Harper I think of Edward the Second. Now I am sure that is my anger talking but if I had to choose for him to follow in the footsteps of a former leader I think that might be the one I would suggest.
Sean, let's look at the circumstanses of how Edward II ended up suffering his ignominious death and remember that this is a progressive board.
Let's not get carried away with our rhetoric, shall we?
No one has been arrested in the country for talking about poking the PM up the butt with a hot rod on the internet. You have to be young and Muslim and talk about beheading.
This fight started with the attempt by the Harper Government to cut funding to the other political parties.
I know, officially, the Conservatives proposed to cut funding to all political parties
However, before they did this, they appointed 16 new ministers to cabinet.
Each of those 16 newly minted cabinet ministers has an office and staff. These new staffers are government employees paid for with taxpayer dollars. Each of these new staffers work for and report to the cabinet minister and therefore, by extension, to the Conservative Party of Canada. This represents several million dollars of research and preparation work that would otherwise have to be paid for by the Conservative Party.
Having done this, the Conservatives then proposed to cut off funding to the other political parties.
So, these aren't two different and seemingly contradictory policies. They are components of a common policy that is intended to ensure that only the governing party has access to government funding and that only the governing party has the resources necessary to ensure its voice is heard.
The Conservatives chose to use the economic crisis rather than deal with it. To quote a former Harris cabinet minister "a useful crisis".
Exactally. And now we still have the crisis and an indecisive phony minority leader who's afraid to show up for work. Great stuff. It's the democracy gap.
Yes, clearly the most important thing to do in a crisis is to ensure as little time as possible for resolution.
As for hanging the campaign on the legitimacy of a prorogation... That ain't a winner. Ekos had prorogation as the most popular option for the governor general, when three options were given (prorogue, election and turn over to coalition). Ipsos has over 62% of Canadians supporting the governor-general's move, 28% opposing.
My ass there is a 62% majority of Canadians for this hare-brained scheme.
Old Goat, I was aware of the irony given Harper's positions on human rights. I have not condoned Edward's nasty end, and the circumstances for Harper are indeed different, I am not sure that what I said was that much of a problem here. I would imagine that a number of people here who also make the case for human rights would likely want to help heat up the coals -- at least in their dreams.
It's a spot poll. I guess conservatives prefer spot polls to actual election results, that one in which they were out voted by 62% of those who did show up at the polls.
Harper shut down Canadian parliament until January 26th to avoid losing his job. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Canadians have already lost theirs, and this is only the beginning. We need leadership not more of the Harpers flipping off and bullying the large majority in parliament.
To all the complaining how 62% did not vote for Harper
74% Did not vote for Dion
90% did not vote for Duceppe
83% Did not vote for Layton
93% Did not vote for May
Only 22 percent of registered voters supported the Harpers.
He's bullied the majority opposing him, and now he's locked the doors of parliament until late January while an economic crisis rages. If he can't stomach parliament now, how in hell is he going to do it in several week's time?
It's a spot poll. I guess conservatives prefer spot polls to actual election results, that one in which they were out voted by 62% of those who did show up at the polls.
Harper shut down Canadian parliament until January 26th to avoid losing his job. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Canadians have already lost theirs, and this is only the beginning. We need leadership not more of the Harpers flipping off and bullying the large majority in parliament.
Give that poll a 10% margin of error - you still don't have a darn majority. It is severe cognitive dissonance to say that, for instance, Harper is illegitimate because he does not have the support of most people, when you don't either.
Its shear stupidity to abandon a plan that you initiated that has more support in the polls than the NDP garnered in the last election, and as much support as the Tories needed to win it.
Give that poll a 10% margin of error - you still don't have a darn majority.
Then why is Harper afraid to show up for work?
Give that poll a 10% margin of error - you still don't have a darn majority.
Then why is Harper afraid to show up for work?
I'm sure Harper would be in favour if scab labour replaces him in Parliament.
Only 22 percent of registered voters supported the Harpers.
This may be true, but then what percentage of registered voters supported each of the leaders of the coalition?
Only 22 percent of registered voters supported the Harpers.
This may be true, but then what percentage of registered voters supported each of the leaders of the coalition?
Enough to out number the Harpers in Parliament, apparently. Where does everyone think herr Steve will go for the holidays? Bavaria? Switzerland? Eagle's nest?
I'm blogging that opening post, Sean. Hope that's ok! I'll link to this thread.
This Godwins the whole debate magnificently - but it's so funny!
To all the complaining how 62% did not vote for Harper
74% Did not vote for Dion
90% did not vote for Duceppe
83% Did not vote for Layton
93% Did not vote for May
On the flipside, we can say that although 62% did not vote for Harper, only 57% did not vote for either Dion or Layton. And then only 47% did not vote for any of Dion, Layton or Duceppe.
This outlines the fundamental fault of FPTP system. Another strong argument for PR.
I'm willing to bet that Harper is the very last choice for the vast majority of those who voted against him. And polling showed that more than half of those who intended to vote for Harper didn't actually want him to win a majority.To all the complaining how 62% did not vote for Harper
74% Did not vote for Dion
90% did not vote for Duceppe
83% Did not vote for Layton
93% Did not vote for May
If herr Steveler thinks he has a mandate to rule, then why is he afraid to show up for work?
Steve's first act as phony minority PM after a $300 million dollar election is to take a two month paid vacation in Bavaria, or Switzerland, or five star Eagle's Nest Hotel? Those lazy louts!
I'm willing to bet that Harper is the very last choice for the vast majority of those who voted against him. And polling showed that more than half of those who intended to vote for Harper didn't actually want him to win a majority.To all the complaining how 62% did not vote for Harper
74% Did not vote for Dion
90% did not vote for Duceppe
83% Did not vote for Layton
93% Did not vote for May
Well why don't you prove it. Oh yeah, in Canada, picking second place
is not on the ballot.
Jeez, I thought you would know that.
Nothing quite like shutting down Parliament when you're about to be taken down. Herr Harper, indeed! (Or should that be Hair Harper?)
[QUOTE] Old Goat, I was aware of the irony given Harper's positions on human rights. I have not condoned Edward's nasty end, [/QUOTE]
Sorry, I was tired and cranky.
[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21389.htm]Harper's Coup[/url]
Mike Whitney notices what's happening up-a here.
[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21389.htm]Harper's Coup[/url]
Mike Whitney notices what's happening up-a here.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper suspended Canada's parliament to avoid a challenge from opposition parties that were planning to oust him from power. The 3-party coalition--the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois---decided to remove Harper because of his strong opposition to a stimulus package that was designed to minimize the effects of the financial crisis. They also opposed his "proposed elimination of subsidies for political parties, a three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike, and limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity." . .It's hard to imagine an agenda with more profound consequences for Canadians, beginning with a dramatic reordering of national priorities. Public health care? Child poverty? Fighting global warming?. . .
"The Canadian government has always been chosen by the people," said the Prime Minister.
Not true, and Harper knows it.
"He's appealing to people who learned their civics from American television," said Henry Jacek, a political scientist at McMaster University. Other scholars... say Harper's populist theory of democracy is more suited to a U.S.-style presidential system, in which voters cast ballots directly for a national leader, than it is to Canadian parliamentary democracy
Harper is a shameless toady for the vicious empire.
