Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Canadian Politics: Proroguery Electric Boogaloo (with epic Harper evil picture in OP)

1495052545562

Posts

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I just made a stern phone call to Michaelle's office and I urge all of you to do so immediately

    [email protected]
    1-800-465-6890

    Azio on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I would eat shit on a stick before I'd expect the Governor General to say no to the PM's request. There was more of a plausible possibility of it happening during the coalition period than there is now.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Yeah, proroguing at the end of a session is different than proroguing to thwart the will of parliament and prevent a confidence vote. It's lame to be sure, but it's not out of the ordinary.

    It'll be interesting to see what happens when Parliament comes back into session and the government still hasn't produced the documents it requested. Could McKay be found to be in contempt of Parliament?

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    This session of parliament can hardly be said to have ended; there is still legislation on the table and they have accomplished few, if any of the goals outlined in the throne speech of 26 January. Traditionally a prorogue is for when the government has fulfilled its agenda for the year.

    Yes, the GG has no call over this, but it's still important to make sure she knows how we feel about this. You should also mail Ignatieff and Layton and your Liberal/NDP/Bloc MP if applicable to urge them to present an alternative government in March

    As for the Afghanistan detainee file, when Parliament resumes the government won't attend the committees so the committees won't go forward and the issue will play out in the media. We can all rest assured that the government will come out ahead on the detainee file.

    Azio on
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Azio wrote: »
    This session of parliament can hardly be said to have ended; there is still legislation on the table and they have accomplished few, if any of the goals outlined in the throne speech of 26 January. Traditionally a prorogue is for when the government has fulfilled its agenda for the year.

    As for the Afghanistan detainee file, when Parliament resumes the government won't attend the committees so the committees won't go forward and the issue will play out in the media. We can all rest assured that the government will come out ahead on the detainee file.

    I think you misunderstood me. The fall session of Parliament has ended with the Christmas recess that will last until the beginning of February. Prorogation will simply add another few weeks of break during the Olympics and will kill anything on the order paper not yet given royal assent. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering the sort of junk that the Tories tried to push through over the past year.

    And if the Tory committee members don't attend the committee meetings and so won't allow quorum to be reached, that's fine - but the entire House has voted to be provided with certain papers and persons and that request at the moment is being ignored by the government, which is an incredibly serious breach of parliamentary privilege which is perhaps more blatant and unconstitutional than what Harper did last year, as there's actually been a vote. Seeing how the Parliament will respond to the Ministry rejecting its request will be most interesting, and I generally agree with Andrew Coyne's assessment that there should and most certainly will be general outrage and another constitutional showdown in the new year if the papers and persons requested aren't forwarded to the Commons.

    Hell, if the committee is unable to continue its work, the Commons can simply vote to strike a new committee, or start a Parliamentary inquiry, or conduct its business in Committee of the Whole. There are loads of ways for the Commons to get around the obstructionism of Harper.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Could you link the Coyne article? I hadn't heard of this and wouldn't mind reading it.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Prorogation will simply add another few weeks of break during the Olympics and will kill anything on the order paper not yet given royal assent. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering the sort of junk that the Tories tried to push through over the past year.
    Thank you for pointing this out. A prorogue will kill the Conservatives' own legislation and roll the tape back to January 2009. I don't think it could be any clearer that this PM has no interest in actually governing

    Azio on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I don't necessarily like the argument that 'well it's only going to extend the break for a few more weeks.' This wasn't the reasoning of the government for calling the prorogation (not that I'm saying it's anyone else's reason in the thread) and so it seems like it's just an attempt to trivialize an issue of governing that to me seems fraught with, lately, repeated instances of ignoring established norms and standards for pure political gain.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • SenjutsuSenjutsu thot enthusiast Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    This is such fucking horseshit

    Senjutsu on
    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/21/parliament-will-fight/
    Parliament will fight
    What’s at stake here is nothing less than our system of government
    by Andrew Coyne on Monday, December 21, 2009 12:10pm


    We are not yet in a constitutional crisis over the government’s refusal to release the Colvin memos to Parliament, but we probably should be. A secretive and overbearing government has turned an ordinary political dispute into an extraordinary confrontation over the powers and privileges of Parliament. Unless some compromise is found, Parliament will fight, and Parliament will be right.

    What began as a manageable controversy over the Harper government’s faltering attempts to deal with a problem it inherited from the Liberals—what to do with the prisoners our forces captured in Afghanistan—has been transformed, via the Conservatives’ reflexive paranoia and insularity, into a full-blown political debacle, complete with martyred whistle-blower, outraged former ambassadors, self-correcting generals, and befuddled ministers. And running throughout, a drumbeat of press reports contradicting virtually every aspect of the government’s story.

    It now appears, contrary to the government’s repeated assurances, that at least some of the prisoners we transferred to the Afghan police and security services were tortured, or at least abused; that at least some of our troops knew this; and that serious concerns about the treatment of these prisoners, and about our own procedures for reporting on their whereabouts, were relayed to government and Defence officials, not only from Richard Colvin, the diplomat at the centre of the storm, but from multiple sources.

    None of this is evidence of a deliberate policy of transferring prisoners for torture, or even negligent disregard of their probable fate—the stuff of war crimes charges. Neither can we say for a fact that senior officials knew prisoners were being mistreated. The facts, at least so far, remain consistent with a story of officials’ evolving awareness of the seriousness of the problem, and of the inadequacies of their initial responses.

    It was, after all, at Canada’s insistence that an agreement was first struck with the Afghan government in December 2005, requiring that any prisoners be treated humanely according to the Geneva Conventions, and ensuring access to Red Cross inspectors at any time. As the weakness of that agreement became apparent, a new arrangement was struck in February 2007 providing for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to make inspections as well. Corrections Canada officers were flown over to make recommendations for improving Afghan prisons. And when even that proved deficient (the AIHRC complained it was being denied access), after the publication in April 2007 of prisoners’ allegations of mistreatment the protocol was changed yet again, to provide for inspections by Canadian officials.

    It is legitimate to ask why it took so many months for the Harper government to arrive at the same protocol that was insisted upon by the British and Dutch forces from the start. It is equally legitimate to ask why the previous Liberal government did not simply hand any prisoners taken over to the American military, rather than gamble on the prison system of a country whose notion of justice might charitably be described as medieval. Even allowing for the confusion that typifies any war zone, let alone Afghanistan, the answers might well have reflected poorly on both governments.

    But whatever controversy might thus have been aroused would have been nothing like the firestorm in which the Conservatives now find themselves, owing entirely to their refusal to allow the evidence to come out—a policy that, whatever its motives, has only fed suspicions of wrongdoing. If the government has nothing to hide, it sure seems determined to hide it.

    It is not only Parliament, we should recall, that the government has been stonewalling. Colvin’s sensational appearance before the Commons special committee on Afghanistan only came about after the chairman of the military police complaints commission, Peter Tinsley, discontinued hearings into the treatment of Afghan detainees in the face of the government’s persistent refusal to release the relevant documents to the commission.

    Obstructing the work of a quasi-judicial commission is one thing—regrettably, hardly unusual in this country, where the shutdown of the Somalia inquiry caused barely a ripple. But refusing a Commons committee’s demand for the documents—and, more remarkably, last week’s vote of the full House—is another thing again.

    This is hardly a “fishing expedition,” after all. The Colvin memos, in particular, are clearly relevant to some of the central questions in dispute: what happened, what the government knew, what it should have known. If nothing else, they go, as the lawyers say, to the question of credibility. Colvin told the committee he warned his superiors, repeatedly, that Canadian-transferred prisoners were being tortured; his superiors, military and civilian, testified they received no such warnings—that, indeed, the memos said no such thing.

    The release, after much delay, of the “redacted” memos, did little to resolve the question, so many and extensive were the blacked-out portions: much as other documents were blacked out before their release. The defence offered by the government, of national security concerns, is a legitimate one in principle. But whatever benefit of the doubt the government might have enjoyed has been diminished as we learn what some of the redactions conceal.

    Much controversy, for example, was aroused by the publication of a Canadian soldier’s field notes describing the capture and transfer of an Afghan prisoner who, it later emerged, was beaten by the Afghan National Police—in particular, by the following passage: “We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over, to ensure that if the ANP did assault him, as has happened in the past, we would have a visual record of his condition.” (Emphasis added.) In the version released to the MPCC, the same document reads: “We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over [redacted].”

    So we need to see the documents, in unedited form. Or rather, Parliament (technically, the House of Commons, but I’ll use the shorthand) has demanded to see the documents. With that, and with the government’s brusque rejection of its demands, the dispute has entered an entirely new stage. It is difficult to overstate the importance of what is at stake. It is no less fundamental than whether the government is answerable to Parliament—the bedrock principle of our system of government. That’s not only a political matter. It’s also, arguably, a legal one.

    I say arguably, because legal scholars appear to be divided. There is no debate that Parliament has the power to subpoena records and compel witnesses, one of a broad array of powers and immunities known as parliamentary privilege. What is in question is how far these apply to government officials—that is, to the Crown.

    Some, such as Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall law school, accept the government’s argument that it is bound by statute not to release the redacted information, notably by the Security of Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act. If Parliament would like to make an exception to these laws, runs the argument, it is obliged to amend the legislation. Others, such as McGill’s Stephen Scott, emphasize Crown prerogative as a limiting factor on parliamentary privilege. Whatever powers Parliament may have to demand documents, he argues, they are not sufficiently explicit to override the Crown’s.

    The Commons law clerk, Rob Walsh, takes the opposite view. In a strongly worded exchange of letters with the Department of Justice, Walsh puts the onus the other way around: in the absence of a specific exception in the statutes, the general presumption of parliamentary privilege should apply. If Parliament had wanted the Canada Evidence Act to limit its right to compel evidence, it would have said so. In fact, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister at the time was at pains to spell out in debate that the intent of the bill was that “Parliament’s privilege to send [for] persons, papers and records not be affected.”

    But Walsh’s views are mild, compared to those of Derek Lee. The lawyer and Liberal MP could fairly be said to have written the book on this issue—literally. The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records: A Sourcebook on the Law and Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena for Canadian and Other Houses, his 1999 opus, would seem to have been written in anticipation of just such a dispute. Lee himself is categorical: Parliament’s powers in this respect are absolute and total, even with regard to government officials. “There is no barrier—none.” Well, short of summoning the Queen.

    How should Parliament respond to the government’s apparent rejection of its demands? Lee is unequivocal. “There are only two or three times every century when parliaments have an opportunity to benchmark their powers,” he says. “This is one of those moments in time, when Parliament says the king must submit to the will of the people’s House.”

    The matter won’t be settled in court, he vows: indeed, the courts will not even look at it. Rather, he intends to move a motion asserting parliamentary privilege just as soon as the House returns. Should the Commons vote to find the government in contempt, it has a range of punishments at its command, even as far as banishing the Prime Minister from the House. And should the government deem this a confidence vote? “This is so fundamental it’s not even a matter of confidence. Parliament might not allow itself to be dissolved, and the Governor General should be aware of this.”

    It needn’t come to that, of course. No one is suggesting the documents should be released to the general public. So far as national security concerns are an issue, committee meetings could go in camera. Committee members could be required to swear an oath not to disclose the evidence they received, as is the practice in other democracies. As it happens, Lee is the sponsor of a private member’s bill that would set up a national security committee on these lines, reviving a government bill that died with the 2006 election. He has written the Prime Minister asking his support for the legislation. Now would seem a good time for the PM to respond.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The matter won’t be settled in court, he vows: indeed, the courts will not even look at it. Rather, he intends to move a motion asserting parliamentary privilege just as soon as the House returns. Should the Commons vote to find the government in contempt, it has a range of punishments at its command, even as far as banishing the Prime Minister from the House. And should the government deem this a confidence vote? “This is so fundamental it’s not even a matter of confidence. Parliament might not allow itself to be dissolved, and the Governor General should be aware of this.”

    Man, I would like to see this. Just for the surreality of it.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I actually find myself anxiously awaiting Harpers removal as head of state. However, I still cannot fathom which of the alternatives I would actually find passable.

    More and more I find myself wondering if removing the representation based on regionality would help heal some of Canadas class/region based conflict, and instead wanting us to move to a purely representational system of % of votes regardless of which districts earned, represents % of parliament.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/
    The Short Parliament
    by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, December 30, 2009 10:39am - 242 Comments

    As Canadian democracy spirals further down the drain:
    Prime Minister Stephen Harper will prorogue Parliament Wednesday for a two-month break.

    The House of Commons and the Senate will come back in March, after the Vancouver Olympics, for a Speech from the Throne and a budget. The move will have the effect of stalling all bills currently in Parliament, including crime bills that the government had said were being delayed by the opposition.

    A post-Olympic return would also shut down government committees, which would stop MPs from pursuing the Afghan detainee controversy until Parliament returned.

    Question: In what other democracy is it permissible for the government of the day to hide from the legislature for months at a time? To ignore explicit parliamentary votes demanding the production of documents? To stonewall independent inquiries? Perhaps the rules allow it elsewhere, but is it the practice? Does convention not still forbid it? Is it not viewed in other countries as dictatorial behaviour, and therefore, you know … not done?

    So, rather than submit himself to the inquiries of elected parliamentarians, the King will dismiss Parliament, in the grand tradition of kings past. The question is: what will Parliament do now? If historical precedent is any guide, it should meet anyway. Let those MPs who wish to do the people’s business convene on the usual timetable, and let those with other loyalties disport themselves as they may.

    If MPs are barred at the doors to Parliament — and wouldn’t that be an interesting scene — let them meet somewhere else. A tennis court would do nicely.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So, after reading Kady O'Malley's blog on the cbc.ca website, I followed the link she provided to Parliament's website where it details the history of recess and sessions and such.

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/ChamberCalendar.aspx?View=H&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2
    For most of its history, the House had no written rule identifying days during a session when it would not meet. If the House wished to adjourn for a period of time during a session, it was necessary to adopt a special adjournment motion, even for a statutory holiday.

    Until 1940, sessions tended to be short, beginning in January or February and ending in May or June of the same calendar year. During the years of the Second World War, the burden of government business grew and session length increased; a pattern of long and irregularly timed sessions established itself.

    In 1964, the House adopted a Standing Order specifying certain days (mainly statutory holidays) during a session when the House would not sit. Despite this, sessions continued to be long and adjournments unpredictably timed.

    The notion of scheduled adjournments again came to the fore in the early 1980s when the motion to adjourn for the summer became the occasion for extended and rancorous debate. In late 1982, the House adopted a series of measures intended to better organize the time of the House and of Members who, along with responsibilities in the House, were occupied with work in committees and in their constituencies. Chief among these measures was the parliamentary calendar, providing for the first time a fixed schedule of sittings and adjournments for the House and adding some degree of predictability to the scheduling of sitting and non-sitting periods.

    The calendar adopted in 1982 divided the year (assuming the House to be in session for the whole year) into three sitting periods separated by adjournments at Christmas, Easter and the summer months. Since its implementation, the calendar has undergone some modification. The Christmas and summer adjournments were extended slightly in 1991 and, within the three sitting periods, additional brief adjournments were added in 1983 and 1991. These were for the most part clustered around existing statutory holidays observed by the House, with the result that each of the three main sitting periods was further broken down into two or three shorter sitting periods.

    In 2001, the provisions relating to the parliamentary recess in March and the Easter adjournment were removed. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, aware that the recess in March seldom coincided with many of the spring breaks for schools, and that the Easter break could fall anywhere between March 22 and April 25, recommended that the House resume sitting one week earlier after the Christmas adjournment, so that a two-week recess could be scheduled in March in addition to the Easter recess. Furthermore, the Committee recommended that the Speaker schedule the March recess in consultation with the House Leaders, and that the dates of the recess be adjusted annually so as to accommodate the varying school breaks across the country.

    For more information please see House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Chapter 8, "The Parliamentary Cycle", and Chapter 9, "Sittings of the House".

    Earlier I made the argument that
    saggio wrote:
    proroguing at the end of a session is different than proroguing to thwart the will of parliament and prevent a confidence vote. It's lame to be sure, but it's not out of the ordinary.

    It appears I was misinformed, because as you can see from the text, there didn't exist a Parliamentary calendar until 1982, and it was only in 1964 that "the House adopted a Standing Order specifying certain days (mainly statutory holidays) during a session when the House would not sit." I figured (wrongly) that prorogation in this instance was justified as the end of the fall sitting of the Commons had occurred and that the legislative calendar had been fulfilled from the government's perspective. Regardless of whether or not the latter has occurred, it seems that it's not only unnecessary for prorogation to happen at this moment in time - the House already stands in recess - but that it removes some special privileges that MPs normally have and is an effective way of cutting off media time for the Opposition.

    This is pretty preposterous. I want resolution to the Afghan issue, and I'd really like to see Parliament assert its authority with respect to its privilege. Maybe it'll do as Andrew Coyne suggested and meet anyway?

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I am not exactly surprised.

    Really fucking disappointed, though.

    KetBra on
    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    This is such fucking horseshit

    An excellent summary.

    Imperfect on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Well this was a nice little democracy we had going for a little while

    Robman on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Has there been any opposition reaction to this yet (though it might still be early)? I'd imagine you could probably mount quite a political defense against Harper's action by taking the position that 'OUR party will defend Parliament and let it do its job'. I mean, it would be a nice change of pace where a party would be advocating for more Parliament sitting dates and could play out well in the media.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    If his goal was to make things nice and tidy for the Olympics, I'm not sure I see how proroguing will benefit him at all. It's a very unpopular move, and he's aiming to do it twice in a year? Is the temporary peace worth the consequences of the frustration and confusion this will cause?

    Harper spent a brief time not sucking, but I guess he got bored or something.

    Also, I third this:
    Imperfect wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    This is such fucking horseshit

    An excellent summary.

    Torso Boy on
    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Well this was a nice little democracy we had going for a little while

    Because you need me, [strike]Springfield[/strike] Canada. Your guilty conscience may move you to vote [strike]Democratic[/strike] Liberal but deep down you long for a cold-hearted [strike]Republican[/strike] Conservative to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king. That's why I did this, to save you from yourselves. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a [strike]city[/strike] country to run.

    hippofant on
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I think we should make proroguing parliament a holiday tradition, really.

    KetBra on
    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    CorpseRT wrote: »
    I think we should make proroguing parliament a holiday tradition, really.

    Why limit it to just the holidays? If animated TV specials have taught me anything, it's that we should try to hold on to the Christmas spirit all year long. Every day should be Proroguement Day!

    Maybe we'll get lucky and Harper's heart will grow three sizes and he'll return Parliament to all the good little MPs.

    CorporateGoon on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Reading the updated OP, does anyone else still think Gilles Duceppe just looks dreamy out of all of them? Why couldn't he be a leader of a non-regional national party?

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Well it's official now.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    It's a sad day when I actually envy the Tea Party lunatics south of the border. There really ought to be widespread protests over Harper's bullshit, but as it is, I suspect it won't even budge his poll numbers significantly. :(

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • CadeCade Eppur si muove.Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    This really makes me wish we as Canadians would really get out there and protest instead of just going "oh well". It's disgusting.

    Cade on
  • EntriechEntriech Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Cade wrote: »
    This really makes me wish we as Canadians would really get out there and protest instead of just going "oh well". It's disgusting.
    Perhaps we as Canadians would get out there and protest if we had any sense it would make a damned bit of difference.

    I mean, we all seem to be aware this is going on. It is being reported on by our major media outlets. Even the goddamn retard radio jockeys on the corprock station were mentioning it. What would throwing a protest achieve, besides giving a bunch of people a hardon that they were doing 'something that matters' by standing around and chanting nonsense? The issue is out there in the open, and people are discussing it.

    What we really need to do is fucking remember, so that the next time we get the opportunity to cast our vote, we can point to all these examples about why Harper's completely unfit to govern. If at the next election I don't hear everyone listing off all these goddamn democratic atrocities that he's committed, then I will be disgusted.

    Entriech on
    Gamecenter/Gamertag/Steam ID/PSN: Entriech
    Guild Wars 2: Entriech.3507 | Scythe Gearsnap, Phlork, Irenic
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    God fucking damn it!

    Torso Boy on
    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Entriech wrote: »
    Cade wrote: »
    This really makes me wish we as Canadians would really get out there and protest instead of just going "oh well". It's disgusting.
    Perhaps we as Canadians would get out there and protest if we had any sense it would make a damned bit of difference.

    I mean, we all seem to be aware this is going on. It is being reported on by our major media outlets. Even the goddamn retard radio jockeys on the corprock station were mentioning it. What would throwing a protest achieve, besides giving a bunch of people a hardon that they were doing 'something that matters' by standing around and chanting nonsense? The issue is out there in the open, and people are discussing it.

    What we really need to do is fucking remember, so that the next time we get the opportunity to cast our vote, we can point to all these examples about why Harper's completely unfit to govern. If at the next election I don't hear everyone listing off all these goddamn democratic atrocities that he's committed, then I will be disgusted.

    I'm guessing what will happen is one or two of the opposition parties will purchase a single ad spot for maybe 1 or 2 weeks to poorly educate voters about the issue, and the conservatives will purchase 3x as many spots for 2x as long.

    Then, the opposition will run one, maybe two polls about the likely outcome of a snap election.

    If it doesnt appear that their party will be able to form a majority or a close minority, they will delay calling for a no confidence vote and the ensuing election until they can strengthen their position.

    Then Canadians will have to suffer through another 6 months of embarassement until the Harper government slips in their own shit again, and repeat the process.

    The political parties in Canada arent interested in good governance, they just want to be the sad little kings of our sad little hills.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • TrusTrus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    If his goal was to make things nice and tidy for the Olympics, I'm not sure I see how proroguing will benefit him at all. It's a very unpopular move, and he's aiming to do it twice in a year? Is the temporary peace worth the consequences of the frustration and confusion this will cause?

    Harper spent a brief time not sucking, but I guess he got bored or something.

    Also, I third this:
    Imperfect wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    This is such fucking horseshit

    An excellent summary.

    Will it cause any frustration or confusion though? If you look at it from Harper's point of view that the last time he prorogued parliament to deal with a government threatening issue it dealt with the issue in like a week and hasn't really been brought up in any meaningful way since. If this becomes SOP for the Conservative government, to prorogue parliament if anything "bad" happens, people will notice I'm sure, but Harper can hide this, right now, under the guise of doing it for the holidays and he can probably get away with it.

    Trus on
    qFN53.png
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Is it weird that I feel personally violated by this?

    Imperfect on
  • DeciusDecius Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Canadians can be so apathetic sometimes...

    *shurg* but whadya gonna do?

    Decius on
    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Decius wrote: »
    Canadians can be so apathetic sometimes...

    *shurg* but whadya gonna do?

    I'd call you for plagiarizing That Canadian Guy, but I really don't care and he probably did the same from some other joke.

    Shadowen on
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Trus wrote: »
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    If his goal was to make things nice and tidy for the Olympics, I'm not sure I see how proroguing will benefit him at all. It's a very unpopular move, and he's aiming to do it twice in a year? Is the temporary peace worth the consequences of the frustration and confusion this will cause?

    Harper spent a brief time not sucking, but I guess he got bored or something.

    Also, I third this:
    Imperfect wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    This is such fucking horseshit

    An excellent summary.

    Will it cause any frustration or confusion though? If you look at it from Harper's point of view that the last time he prorogued parliament to deal with a government threatening issue it dealt with the issue in like a week and hasn't really been brought up in any meaningful way since. If this becomes SOP for the Conservative government, to prorogue parliament if anything "bad" happens, people will notice I'm sure, but Harper can hide this, right now, under the guise of doing it for the holidays and he can probably get away with it.

    This is, sadly, probably true.

    I'm hoping that frustration on the part of the political community will be more intense, and that the media will be more aggressive as well, but I don't know how confident I am that any of that will happen.

    Wanting the kids out of the house while you have guests is understandable, but the Olympics/holidays seem to be nothing more than an excuse. He's hoping the afghan detainee situation will peter out. I hope it doesn't; I hope he cooks for this.

    Torso Boy on
    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    A second prorogue to avoid parlaiment?!? :x

    I... I... So mad having a hard time thinking this through... Look, I'm not apathetic, I just want to know, what effective means do I have to change this situation for the better?

    I will remember this come next election but since I already vote otherwise, how can I be sure others will? Are Canadians just getting what we deserve because we aren't demanding a stronger vote (I am thinking proportional representation where coalitions must form from group of "minority" parties) for people to turn out?

    First past the post regional gets me this? Fuck this, Canadians deserve better IMHO.

    CanadianWolverine on
    steam_sig.png
  • DeciusDecius Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Decius wrote: »
    Canadians can be so apathetic sometimes...

    *shurg* but whadya gonna do?

    I'd call you for plagiarizing That Canadian Guy, but I really don't care and he probably did the same from some other joke.

    You don't need to call me on it. I love Glen Foster. That line is funny because it's true.

    Decius on
    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    First past the post regional gets me this?
    Right-wing governments get you this

    Azio on
  • SloSlo Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Well, I voted conservative last election, but this shit has made me want to drop the party like a hot rock.

    Every party but the liberals just makes things worse, don't they? Except they got caught with their wangs in the honey pot.

    Man, there's like, nobody left worthy of respect, let alone a freaking vote. Depressing.

    Slo on
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Slo wrote: »
    Well, I voted conservative last election, but this shit has made me want to drop the party like a hot rock.

    Every party but the liberals just makes things worse, don't they? Except they got caught with their wangs in the honey pot.

    Man, there's like, nobody left worthy of respect, let alone a freaking vote. Depressing.

    Vote NDP or Green. Or, if you're in Quebec, vote Bloc. All of these parties get accused of being radical or housing extremists or whatever, but in comparison to what the Tories have been getting up to during this most recent mandate, they all look like bastions of reason. And shit, it's a sad fucking commentary when the Bloc Quebecois, a party dedicated to destroying confederation has more respect for our parliamentary institutions and democratic processes than the Conservative Party of Canada, an ostensibly federalist and nationalist party.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I wonder if one could write in Bloc outside of Quebec.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
This discussion has been closed.