Well, folks, we've obviously got ourselves a Harper fan who gladly ignores reality to paint a rosier picture than actually exists:
Yes, I voted for the Conservatives in the last election. I do not consider myself a "Harper fan" however. I'm quite willing to entertain criticisms of the government. Heck, there are a lot of things I don't like about them myself.
However, I find that most of the criticisms directed at the conservatives to be drenched in hypocrisy at worst, or at the least flawed.
My past support of the conservatives does not mean my arguments should be given just as much weight as someone who has supported the opposition in the last election.
re: Calls for "independent inquiries into the robocall issue...
May sound like a silly question, but.... why?
We already have independent organizations (elections Canada, the police, the courts) that are set up to investigate such matters.
After all, if this is just some single disgruntled person trying to pull a prank (and who's actions are already covered by existing laws) then there's not much point in going further.
I've already stated that I'm willing to give up the independent investigation thing...
However the post I was responding to did not have any such statement.
...and instead raised the question, in regard to investigation, that if Harper is really interested in an open investigation, why does he claim that the Liberals should release their calling records, but insist that the Conservatives do not need to?
Pssssttt... its called
politics. All parties do it.
Not sure if that's quite right.
Yes, the government has limited the amount that government scientists can talk to the media, but as far as I know they are not prevented from actually publishing in peer reviewed journals (and the link you provided doesn't make any sort of claim about that either.)
A) you skip over the whole "government has limited the amount that government scientists can talk to the media" as if it is unimportant
Never claimed that it wasn't important... just nowhere serious as their opponents make it out to be.
B) You are correct about the publication thing, my apologies for that factual error.
Actually, that was a pretty serious error on your part that I was addressing.
Once again... government scientists are free to do their research. They are free to publish their results
even if the results conflict with the Conservative's platform. Other scientists are free to talk to the media about those results.
A far far cry from "the government won't let them publish!"
A couple of points:
- The article you referenced doesn't really give any evidence. Instead it points to "rumors" that they plan to prorogue. Rumors from who? Shouldn't we wait for a little more evidence before we condemn them for proroguing again?
There are no
rumors that Harper has twice prorogued parliament...that is historical fact, and that is what I was referring to.
I'm not denying that they prorogued twice. But the article you referenced claimed they planned to do it a 3rd time. Of all the sources you had, why exactly did you find it necessary to quote an article that was making claims based on rumors?
- Despite what you might think, Proroguing parliament actually happens fairly frequently... it supposedly happened 4 times during the last Liberal government (and lets just say that doing so wasn't necessarily to benefit the opposition.)
This is the
most disingenuous of any of your comments.
Not sure what you find disingenuous about it. You trying to claim that Chretien
didn't prorogue parliament?
Yes, past governments have prorogued. They have done so when the bulk of existing legislative business has been concluded. They have not done so when in the midst of huge scandals (such as hiding information about afghan detainees), or potential non-confidence votes.
And Chretien prorogued parliament around the time of the sponsorship scandal.
From:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/746441--vent-outrage-at-your-local-mp
...in late 2003 when former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien prorogued Parliament for 82 days. The reason? Chrétien – like Harper today – was thought to be trying to avoid political flak, in his case the public release of Auditor General Sheila Fraser's damning report on the Quebec sponsorship scandal.
Furthermore, Harper's first proroguing lasted a total of 63 days, far far longer than the average of 22 days that has been typical for the past three decades.
And much shorter than the 82 days Chretien prorogued parliament in 2003.
Again, these are not the hallmarks of a man who values transparency, or democracy.
And I can point to a lot of cases where previous Liberal governments have taken similar actions...
For example:
- Chretien blocked access to civil servants investigating information requests (as well as getting involved in court cases to block access to his records). From:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan001486.pdf
John Reid, the Information Commissioner, is facing 15 court challenges to his attempt to examine the agendas of Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister. Mr. Reid wants the right to determine whether the agendas should be released....
- They rescheduled "opposition days" as a way to avoid non-confidence votes
From:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=37745
...the government postponed the Conservatives' opposition day scheduled for today and attempted to push back all the opposition days that had been set for the first three weeks of May...Mr. Harper said the Liberals' attempt to delay opportunities for no-confidence motions "is certainly breaking any remaining bits of trust with the only opposition party that has not voted non-confidence in them." New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said the Liberals' decision to delay the coming opposition days — and the fact that Prime Minister Paul Martin was not at Question Period to defend the move — showed contempt for Parliament and pushed his party closer to voting against the government.
(Note: The original article appeared in the Globe and Mail, but unfortunately it is no longer available for free.)
- They called early elections, far less than the traditional 4 years of a majority mandate, for no other reason than to take advantage of a divided opposition.
Now, all of those activities are completely legal. And heck, the Conservatives have used them too. But sitting there and pointing to the conservatives as the "only evil ones" is incredibly hypocritical.
Oh, by the way, remember the 'In and Out' scandal? The conservatives actually got an early court victory in that case. Yet elections Canada decided to continue with appeals. Why aren't you blaming them for continuing court cases after "courts rule against them"?
Wow...just a few paragraphs above, you were referring to Elections Canada as a suitably "independent investigator" to pursue questions of election fraud, and now they're the enemy?
Nope, what I'm doing is point out how "lengthy court cases" are not always the fault of the conservatives. Appeals exist for both sides.
