![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Oh, Canada, why do you do this to yourself?
Dear Mr. Harper,
You and I have never agreed on politics. I am way too far to the left of the political spectrum to ever see eye to eye with you on anything, except perhaps to agree that the CFRO is a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayers' money. Everything else, well, if you and I ever actually spoke, we'd have to agree to disagree.
In spite of our political differences, I've always thought you were a pretty canny politician. You've come a long way, and polished your image and improved your French by leaps and bounds, and for that you have, erm, something akin to my respect. At least, credit where credit is due.
That being said... this latest stunt? Not only is it stupid, it is criminally negligent. I must needs believe that you checked all your brainpower and wisdom at the door when you obtained your latest minority government, because instead of focussing on the crisis at hand, you went and spat in the eye of the opposition parties with a hair-brained scheme to try to weaken them because you thought they would never grow enough of a pair to oppose you on this.
Guess what? You were wrong. Not only were you wrong, but you may very well have scuttled this country for the next few years with your irresponsible power-mongering. I am amazed at how badly you underestimated your opponents. I am amazed that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, you are still claiming that we are only going to have a "mild" recession (after trumpeting all through the election that we were "safe" and weren't going to have a recession at all, let me remind you!). Your actions are nothing short of jaw-droppingly stupid.
You have lost the confidence of the House, Mr. Prime Minister. The country never had all that much confidence in you to begin with (see: minority government), and now we're stuck with Dion and Layton having to dance with the devil for the next eighteen months. You are going to go down in ignominy as the man who tanked Canada when he should have been leading, and you are going to lose the leadership of this country in a way that will make Kim Campbell's defeat look dignified.
I hope you're proud of your legacy.
No love,
Me
I have no words to explain the current asshattery of Canadian politics to my non-Canadian LJ friends. It's so dumb, that I'm not sure it's even worth trying for an explanation. Instead I will link to my friend![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
forthright's explanation, which as usual is far clearer and more insightful than anything I could come up with.
To say that I am peeved would be an understatement. After one federal election in Canada this year, I am being forced once more to the polls by the most hair-brained, ill-conceived notion that we needed a provincial election (I live in Québec) right after.
On top of this, the Conservative Government has essentially led us into a giant clusterfuck by engaging in whatforthright rightly qualified as "political brinkmanship of the worst kind" and forcing the two left-of-center parties (the Liberals, who are pretty close to the center but still kind of leftish and the NDP, who are a little more tree-huggy but also have strong roots in the labour movements) to form a coalition government, with the addition of a weird-but-necessary agreement of the Bloc Québécois (whose presence in Parliament still mystifies me), who are left-leaning but also French-Canadian nationalists, to support the government on all confidence motions for the next eighteen months.
To say that this is both good news and extremely worrisome would again be an understatement. The Bloc is openly pro-Québécois, and makes no bones about wishing to cater to French-Canadian interests. As a resident of Québec, I'm pretty intensely conflicted about this. Sure, I'd like my province to do well, but it feels as though we'll be doing it at the expense of my country, and that price is too high as far as I'm concerned. I also don't like the idea of a party that's essentially dedicated to ripping my country apart to have so many strings to pull, strings which have not yet been revealed to the voting public, I might add.
Not to mention that this shiny new coalition is going to be running the country during what is likely to be the worst economic crisis of the last sixty or seventy years. I can't see that going well, can you?
That being said, Harper's tactic of "I-double-dog-dare-you" to Dion to take his coalition before the voters is self-serving and downright low, as far as I'm concerned. We just had an election. The last thing this country needs is another one: they are costly, and as we just saw, right now the country is in a political deadlock.
In short, things suck.
You and I have never agreed on politics. I am way too far to the left of the political spectrum to ever see eye to eye with you on anything, except perhaps to agree that the CFRO is a ridiculous waste of time and taxpayers' money. Everything else, well, if you and I ever actually spoke, we'd have to agree to disagree.
In spite of our political differences, I've always thought you were a pretty canny politician. You've come a long way, and polished your image and improved your French by leaps and bounds, and for that you have, erm, something akin to my respect. At least, credit where credit is due.
That being said... this latest stunt? Not only is it stupid, it is criminally negligent. I must needs believe that you checked all your brainpower and wisdom at the door when you obtained your latest minority government, because instead of focussing on the crisis at hand, you went and spat in the eye of the opposition parties with a hair-brained scheme to try to weaken them because you thought they would never grow enough of a pair to oppose you on this.
Guess what? You were wrong. Not only were you wrong, but you may very well have scuttled this country for the next few years with your irresponsible power-mongering. I am amazed at how badly you underestimated your opponents. I am amazed that, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, you are still claiming that we are only going to have a "mild" recession (after trumpeting all through the election that we were "safe" and weren't going to have a recession at all, let me remind you!). Your actions are nothing short of jaw-droppingly stupid.
You have lost the confidence of the House, Mr. Prime Minister. The country never had all that much confidence in you to begin with (see: minority government), and now we're stuck with Dion and Layton having to dance with the devil for the next eighteen months. You are going to go down in ignominy as the man who tanked Canada when he should have been leading, and you are going to lose the leadership of this country in a way that will make Kim Campbell's defeat look dignified.
I hope you're proud of your legacy.
No love,
Me
I have no words to explain the current asshattery of Canadian politics to my non-Canadian LJ friends. It's so dumb, that I'm not sure it's even worth trying for an explanation. Instead I will link to my friend
forthright's explanation, which as usual is far clearer and more insightful than anything I could come up with.To say that I am peeved would be an understatement. After one federal election in Canada this year, I am being forced once more to the polls by the most hair-brained, ill-conceived notion that we needed a provincial election (I live in Québec) right after.
On top of this, the Conservative Government has essentially led us into a giant clusterfuck by engaging in what
forthright rightly qualified as "political brinkmanship of the worst kind" and forcing the two left-of-center parties (the Liberals, who are pretty close to the center but still kind of leftish and the NDP, who are a little more tree-huggy but also have strong roots in the labour movements) to form a coalition government, with the addition of a weird-but-necessary agreement of the Bloc Québécois (whose presence in Parliament still mystifies me), who are left-leaning but also French-Canadian nationalists, to support the government on all confidence motions for the next eighteen months.To say that this is both good news and extremely worrisome would again be an understatement. The Bloc is openly pro-Québécois, and makes no bones about wishing to cater to French-Canadian interests. As a resident of Québec, I'm pretty intensely conflicted about this. Sure, I'd like my province to do well, but it feels as though we'll be doing it at the expense of my country, and that price is too high as far as I'm concerned. I also don't like the idea of a party that's essentially dedicated to ripping my country apart to have so many strings to pull, strings which have not yet been revealed to the voting public, I might add.
Not to mention that this shiny new coalition is going to be running the country during what is likely to be the worst economic crisis of the last sixty or seventy years. I can't see that going well, can you?
That being said, Harper's tactic of "I-double-dog-dare-you" to Dion to take his coalition before the voters is self-serving and downright low, as far as I'm concerned. We just had an election. The last thing this country needs is another one: they are costly, and as we just saw, right now the country is in a political deadlock.
In short, things suck.
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean is on her way home......sometimes "divide and conquer" backfires, mate.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The Bloc is effectively a third partner, no matter how much the Liberals and NDP may deny it.
no subject
no subject
I have been listening to the radio coverage of this issue for the past few days and I have not once heard anyone, of any political stripe, deny that the Bloc is supporting the coalition.
no subject
But they are denying that the Bloc is an active partner, and claiming that this action is consistent with the cause of national unity. As
no subject
The Bloc won't have any seats in the house, and this is why they say that the Bloc won't be an active partner, just a supporter. (yeah, right, supporter until they see fit to throw a tantrum to get their way...)
no subject
Without getting into the question of the Liberals' and NDP's motivations, the Bloc is holding the whip hand. In order to stay in power, they have to keep the Bloc happy, and what the Bloc wants is not good for the country.
no subject
I had to get out of the car just as the report on today's session was starting, so I missed it aside from the description of it as such a chaotic cacophony that even the translators were apologizing for not being able to understand what was being said.
To me, the coalition smacks of opportunism on the part of all three parties involved.
no subject
Unless this is all a cunning Harper plan to leave the Liberals and NDP in the driver's seat while the economy tanks, while simultaneously making them appear like the greedy opportunistic sleaze they are, so that when things fall to pieces and we wind up at the polls again in another few months, everybody will be so disgusted with the coalition that the Tories will finally get their majority. Or maybe I just need Thorazine.
no subject
No one is looking good, as you said. They haven't looked good since the beginning of the election.
no subject
That pretty well sums up the behaviour of Stephen Harper, aka the megalomaniac.
no subject
The only thing I haven't been able to figure on this is why it's considered brinkmanship.
It's only brinkmanship if it forces us to the edge. My understanding of how parliament should work (especially minorities, but ideally all of them) is that (short of something hugely unethical or racist) a government should be able to propose for debate in the house, anything they like. The house then discusses, debates and proposes changes. Only if neither side is willing to compromise is there an issue.
In this case, whatever one thinks of the specific policies, nothing indefensible was proposed but the opposition announced that there were to be no negotiations and no compromise; they would bring down the government at the first opportunity.
So other than the fact that people don't much like the PM, why is he at fault for the others not being willing to negotiate?
It reminds me a bit of a religious extremist attacking someone of another faith for provoking them by wearing a religious symbol and claiming to be the victim of provocation when they could have just walked away.
no subject
Je sais que tes affections sont plus anglophones que francophones, mais ce commentaire me blesse beaucoup. Malgré mes attitudes ambivalentes par rapport à la démocratie de type une-croix-dans-un-bulletin-tous-les-quatre-ans et même si la souveraineté du Québec n'est pas au haut de ma liste de priorités, je trouve que c'est manquer de respect à une «nation» - et à moi-même - que de lui refuser la liberté de choisir l'auto-détermination ou non. C'est drôle, quand c'est l'Irlande, le Timor oriental, la Lithuanie, L'Estonie, La Slovaquie, la République Tchèque, l'Ouzbékistan, etc. là ça passe et les anglos festoient. Ailleurs oui, Québec non, parce qu'il est à eux, d'abord et avant tout.
Je vais être conséquente avec mes dires, toutefois. Je considère que les Premières Nations ont droit à l'auto-détermination et non seulement ça ne me fera pas un pli que la carte du Québec «perde des morceaux» pour elles, mais j'en serais ravie.
no subject
Que je sois souverainiste ou non (je ne le suis pas), la présence d'un parti politique dévoué à la dissolution du pays au parlement national ne fait aucun sens pour moi.
Le Québec a déjà essayé par deux fois de déclarer son autonomie. Plus de 50% de la population Québécoise ne veut pas se séparer. Que faire? Foutre les fédéralistes à la porte? S'ils aiment tellement le Canada, qu'ils aillent y vivre? Désolée, mais ma famille est ici depuis dix générations: c'est au Québec que j'ai mes racines, et de nombreux fédéralistes te diront la même chose.
C'est incroyable pour moi de me faire taper dessus tout le temps, de me faire dire que je suis traître à mon "peuple," tout simplement parce que je préfère mon Canada uni.
no subject
La différence entre toi et moi, c'est que moi je ne t'enlève pas la légitimité de voter pour des partis qui sont en faveur du fédéralisme.
no subject
Je ne crois pas qu'ils ont leur place dans un gouvernement auxquels ils ne croient pas. S'ils croient vraiment que le Canada n'est pas un pays légitime, cela n'empêche apparemment pas qu'ils profitent du gouvernement fédéral pour payer leurs salaires.
no subject
Les députés ne proviennent pas de la quatrième dimension. Ils sont élus par des citoyens du Québec.
Donc, tu continues à affirmer que seules les voix québécoises fédéralistes ont le droit d'être entendues au fédéral. Or, tant et aussi longtemps que le fédéral a un droit de regard sur notre/ma vie, je ne vois pas pourquoi nous/je n'aurais pas le droit d'y voter à ma convenance. Nous/me le refuser, c'est anti-démocratique et irrespectueux. Je sens qu'à tes yeux je devrais être une citoyenne de seconde zone, rien de moins. C'est difficile pour moi de ne pas trouver ça extrêmement blessant.
À propos du «race traitor».
Je ne sais pas si je suis la personne qui t'a motivée à mentionner l'accusation de «race traitor» dans ton entrée suivante. J'imagine du moins que mon allusion à tes affinités anglophones plus que francophones t'a blessée. Ce qui a parlé est ma propre blessure. Que tu votes fédéraliste pour moi n'est pas ce qui a motivé cette allusion aux affinités anglophones. Je connais bien des francophones fédéralistes par rapport auxquels je n'ai jamais fait - ni même pensé à faire - d'allusion d'«affinité anglophone plus que francophone». Je sais que ce n'est pas une vision majoritaire chez les souverainistes, mais je considère tout à fait légitime que des francophones votent fédéraliste.
En fait, ce qui me choque et me blesse dans la situation actuelle sont les deux points suivants:
1- Ton refus de laisser les voix souverainistes s'exprimer (donc de considérer que ta voix est plus légitime que la mienne)
2- Le fait que tu as volontiers tendance à t'exprimer en anglais même avec des francophones. Je pense notamment à certains de tes échanges avec David (et je lui reprocherais la même chose).
La diversité linguistique est une chose que je considère très précieuse. Or, ma formation passée en sociolinguistique et ma connaissance des réalités linguistiques irlandaises me permettent de voir des mécanismes classiques de déclin linguistique dans ce transfert linguistique vers une langue en position impérialiste de la part de locuteurs pour lesquels il ne s'agit pas d'une langue d'origine.
Tá faitíos orm go dtarlóidh leis an bhFraincis an méid chéanna ar tharla leis an nGaeilge.
De la même manière, je trouve d'ailleurs dommage de voir que plusieurs langues de Premières Nations sont en déclin d'usage en raison des contraintes économiques, politiques et sociales que nous leur avons fait subir (pensionnats, quelqu'un?)). Finalement, je ne considère pas que les populations immigrantes devraient devenir des monolingues français et perdre leur langue d'origine.