In today's column in The Globe and Mail, Tory lapdog John Ibbitson looks at the government's assisted dying law. He concludes the Trudeau Grits are acting just like the Harper Tories. I hate to say it but he's right.
The Liberal government’s handling of the bill resembled the Conservatives at their worst.
To bring the new federal law into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling on assisted dying, the government created a committee, which recommended measures to end the lives of, not only those dying from an intolerably painful illness, but those suffering from intolerable chronic or mental illness. Mature minors might also quality.
But the government calculated that the public was not prepared to go there, and so pared back the grounds for seeking a medically assisted death. Many observers warn that the government bill, as written, would be unlikely to survive a court challenge. So the Trudeau government is mimicking the Harper government in passing legislation that many authorities consider judicially invalid.
Potentially unconstitutional bills, warring over the hammer of closure and confusion in the Senate. Where have we heard that before?
He's right. You know it. I know it. Faced with a tough call - for his party, that is - Trudeau has, again, gone weak-kneed, incapable of doing the right thing. Once again he shows us that, when difficult, even perilous, problems arise, we can't count on him when we may need him most.
12 comments:
Back in April when the Libs first introduced the assisted dying bill, I pointed out that like Harper before him, Trudeau was ignoring the recommendations of an all-party committee. I was surprised when you accused me of being "inexcusably disingenuous" for suggesting that the Trudeau Libs are no better than the Harper Cons on this. Good to see you rethink your position.
F*ck Ibbitson. He's a f*cking weasel. He was never critical of Harper doing anything that was unconstitutional.
There's a big difference between Harper and Trudeau. Harper was passing unconstitutional laws (ssssss -- as in plural) to ram a radical social-conservative agenda down the throats of Canadians.
Trudeau is trying to represent Canadians who find the Supreme Court ruling on assisted dying a little too radical for their liking.
So if the SC strikes down Trudeau's bill, he can expand the bill at a later time. This amounts to a developmental approach that accommodates the will of the people.
Ibbitson is opposed to assisted dying. That he's trying to associate Trudeau with Harper in a negative way when he loves Harper and hates Trudeau shows he's a disgusting little maggot of a man.
F*ck the establishment and their hand-puppet journalists. F*cking liars in public places! Break out the guillotines. Time to storm the Bastille!
@ Anon 4:15 - pleased that you're pleased.
@ Anon 4:17 - steady boy, steady. I know Ibbitson is a Tory shill. I said that at the outset when I said he was a Tory lapdog.
Your "developmental approach" is sophistry. The Carter decision was clear. It is the law of the land. It is not for any prime minister to override the Rule of Law, not even a Liberal prime minister.
Trudeau is "trying to represent Canadians who find the Supreme Court ruling ..a little too radical for their liking." Since when is it his mandate to represent some Canadians and not all? Since when is it his prerogative to infringe on the constitutional rights and protections identified by the Court in Carter? You don't want a prime minister, you want a ruler, one who can substitute his preference for the Supreme Court's ruling. You should go back and brush up on constitutional democracy.
"You don't want a prime minister, you want a ruler, one who can substitute his preference for the Supreme Court's ruling."
Trudeau is not substituting his preference. He's substituting the preference of the Canadian public who find the SC ruling too radical.
Trudeau doesn't want to take the heat for the SC ruling. So he's taking a compromise approach. It's not the last word on the issue. People can challenge his law in court. Then it will have to be updated.
So the process works. It doesn't have to work all at once in order to work.
BTW, if you want a PM instead of an autocrat you should support electoral reform. Otherwise it's autocrats on 40% of the vote. (How autocratic the autocrat wants to be is entirely at the autocrat's discretion. Given power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, a generous autocrat tends to get less generous over time.)
For example, if the Liberals led a 50% coalition with the NDP, the NDP could put their foot down and demand the assisted dying law better reflect the SC ruling or they won't vote for it.
As the saying goes, democracy is the best of all worse alternatives — and that includes whatever kind of establishment-controlled nonsense we have now.
Canadians want restrictions on doctor-assisted dying, poll suggests
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadians-want-restrictions-on-doctor-assisted-dying-poll-suggests/article29548237/
Pretty much the only time Conservatives and Liberals are right is when they criticize each other. Of course, they are usually hypocrites when they do that, since most of their criticisms also apply to their own party.
@ Anon 6:48. Do you understand the basic concept of "rights"? Constitutional rights, such as those created under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, aren't based on popularity or the degree of public support. This isn't a matter of mob rule. If it's a legitimate right or freedom it is the right or freedom of the person it serves, not the horde and certainly not some feckless prime minister.
You did get one thing right. "Trudeau doesn't want to take the heat." Just another example of his craven cowardice. So he's trying to take the weasel approach - again. His personal interest and preference is not what governs the issue. His cowardice is disgusting and so is your defence of it.
Of course you would agree with Ibbitson. He's a Harper lover and you're a Trudeau hater. Do you think people are fools? Are you going senile?
Thanks, Simon. Nice of you to stop by. See you soon.
appreciated your analyses and the following commentary and responses. Always hardest to protect minority rights, and where the rubber hits the mat. If one substituted racism, it's never okay for people to be denied, say healthcare, because some people feel a bit uncomfortable. Who ever that was, sure needs some reflection.
Hey, Jan. Thanks. Coming from you I appreciate your remarks. Yes, this is about minority rights and governments that won't uphold them. It took Ignatieff to drive me from the Liberal ranks and Trudeau is only confirming the rightness of that decision.
You are very welcome. MoS. I often read your blog because I find it thoughtful.
Post a Comment