…a bunch of stuff happened.
For one thing, the Martin government released a federal budget, which was another snoozer. Lots of promises to everyone that will deliver not a whole helluvalot to anyone. By my calculation, the “massive tax cuts” promised will save me exactly $14 in income tax next year. That’s two movie tickets and a small popcorn on cheapy night. Yippee! The budget was designed with one purpose in mind: to keep the Liberals in power. Well, mission accomplished, I suppose.
From the maybe-yes-then-again-maybe-no department, Paul Martin has proven himself, in the grand tradition of Canadian leaders, to be incapable of making a decision if it might cost him a few votes. Martin has opted not to participate in the missile defence program with the United States, on the grounds that, well, it would give him bad press because of rampant anti-Americanism. Oh, and the NDP might use words like “Star Wars”. Everyone knows that Star Wars are scary. Especially “Attack of the Clones”. That was just awful.
Anyway, I don’t quite get it. And neither does Paul Cellucci:
“I personally don’t think it’s in Canada’s sovereign interest to be outside the room when a decision is made about a missile that might be coming toward Canada.”
Paul, Paul, Paul… haven’t you learned anything in your years as ambassador to Canada? It’s not that we’re not interested in defending our country. It’s that we Canadians have deluded ourselves into thinking that if we smile and are nice and polite to everyone and refuse to take a stand on much of anything, that nobody will ever attack us. As for those pesky terrorists, well, they’re mainly just misunderstood, and we’ll give them an immigration hearing in about 6 months.
Moving on. Syria might withdraw from Lebanon in response to massive public and international pressure following the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri… maybe. I guess the Syrians don’t particularly relish the thought that the ever-pervasive “End the Occupation” posters at ANSWER rallies might be directed against them, instead of against Israel. Of course, everyone knows that Baby Assad is really just stalling, hoping that the issue will blow over and the world can go back to merrily ignoring Syria’s sins and condemning Israel. That should happen in about 10 seconds, when the Israelis begin heightening security measures in reaction to today’s suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. If there’s one thing the Arab world can count on, it’s the rest of the world’s single-mindedness when it comes to Israel.
Finally, from the Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish department, Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel will finally be deported from Canada, after hanging out in a Toronto jail for the past couple of years, trying to fight extradition to Germany on the grounds that he would immediately be prosecuted there for hate crimes. Somehow, I can’t see anyone shedding any tears over his departure.
You talk about democracy a lot. Isn’t there a majority of Canadians who oppose the missile defense program? If Martin went against the wishes or most Canadians, wouldn’t that be anti-democratic?
I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I’ve never respected politicians who govern by opinion polls.
So, what would a democratic politician do if not go by the wishes of the majority?
If Martin had said “yes” even though most Canadians wanted a “no”, would that have been democratic of him?
Yup. He was elected by a democratic process to lead his party, consisting of other democratically elected representatives. If the electorate are dissatisfied with his/their governance, they’ll boot him/them out at the next democratically run election.
I detest their sorry asses (Liberals) but I’d detest them more if they couldn’t make a decision without holding a referendum first. The problem is in the total lack of freedom the individual MPs have in votes in Parliament. It’s toe the Party Line or find a new career.
Dan,
I’m curious to know how this applies to city mergers. After all, an official is free to disregard the wishes of the majority and if people aren’t pleased with the decisions he’s taken while in office, they’ll boot him out.
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/about/
We don’t have ‘mergers’ out here but rather a non-directly elected level of gov’t running a management body called the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
The Mayors of the affected municipalities/cities sit on the board and collectively decide how and where to spend our taxdollars. Many issues like transit, water supply, and policing don’t relate to city boundaries.
I can’t speak to your system in Quebec, I don’t know much about it.
hey anon, how about getting a name on there, cowboy?
We choose a government in order to govern..not in order to have them dither and run the country by opinion polls. Sometimes it means that they have to make unpopular decisions for the good of all of us. I fail to see how surrendering in advance to anyone who might care to lob ICBMs at North America is a decision that is in the greater interest of all Canadians.
BTW, Sari..that Star Wars scary–Attack of the Clones thing..classic.
Ah, Anon, I think I see where you’re headed with this. You perceive a contradiction in how I criticize Paul Martin on this issue but also criticized the Quebec government for the forced mergers. I assume you’re referring to posts like this one.
Apples and oranges, my anonymous friend, apples and oranges.
You see, the PQ government implemented the forced mergers over the heads of citizens who did not elect them with any mandate to start carving up cities the way chefs carve turkeys. The Federal government, on the other hand, does have national defence as part of its mandate. The PQ had no standing to force mergers just to reward its friends in the unions; the Liberals do have standing to act in the best interest of the security of the country. And there’s a big difference between leadership and bullying.
I can respect a leader who makes an unpopular decision – as long as the decision is backed by solid reasoning and that it falls under his (or her) area of responsibility. I can’t respect a leader who makes an unpopular decision with no reasoning, no mandate, and no purpose other than to reward political friends and punish political enemies. That’s not leadership, that’s vindictiveness.
I hope that serves as a partial clarification.
Oh, and pick a nickname. If you’re going to make a comment, you should be willing to stand by it.
Yeh, Anon, what she said! Half the time I forget to fill in the ident fields and I become (tadaaa) “Anonymous” and Lord knows, she doesn’t want two of us…
Is this okay?
…hmmm, creativity’s not your long suit eh?
“You see, the PQ government implemented the forced mergers over the heads of citizens who did not elect them with any mandate to start carving up cities the way chefs carve turkeys. The Federal government, on the other hand, does have national defence as part of its mandate.”
Well, we all know by know that consistency isn’t one of your strongpoints Segacs. And here you confuse two senses of the word mandate. The Liberals didn’t run on missile defence and in that sense have no particular mandate based on their election platform. National defense, as you correctly state, is constitutionaly under the authority of the federal government. In pursuing missile defense, Parliament would be within its powers, but acting on no “popular” mandate on the issue as such.
But the PQ was also acting within the constitutional powers set out for provincial governments in legislating demergers. Like the Liberals and missile defense, they could claim no “popular” mandate from campaigning on the issue; yet they had the legal authority to do so.
Not apples and oranges, Segacs, but confusing two distinct issues through linguistic slippiage.