The Harper Cons, who never met a prison they didn't like to fill, are back with their mandatory imprisonment pot bill. Renters caught with just six plants (although, in fairness, I really don't know how much pot that is) face a minimum 9-month sentence. Of course Harper is a firm believer in his American Idol, George w. Bush's "ownership society" so you only get slammed up for 9-months if you're a lowly tenant, not a homeowner.
Aside from the obvious offence of being "just" a renter, other aggravating factors include finding a gun on the premises (that one makes sense), whether the location is unsafe and whether the pot plants posed a danger to residents in a residential neighbourhood.
While I favour Paul Martin's proposal for the limited decriminalization of pot, I think it's ludicrous to scrap judicial discretion in cases of small-scale pot growing. What is it going to achieve other than providing another red meat issue for Harper to toss to his law'n odour fans?
Any Liberal leader who can't or won't defend Canada's judicial system against these redneck punks should be given a one-way ticket back to wherever he calls home. This ought to have been an issue on which the faux-liberal Liberal Leader could have taken a stand but, instead, the Libs supported Harper in resurrecting the bill. Harvard or no, this character is a total disappointment to anyone who embraces progressive liberalism. With this kind of leadership the LPC deserves to be polling at 26%. They've earned that. If they back mandatory minimum sentences for this, Harper already has them on a well-greased slippery slope.
Showing posts with label Ignatieff-Harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ignatieff-Harper. Show all posts
Friday, May 07, 2010
Friday, February 27, 2009
Michael in NeverLand - Athabasca and Other Tarry Tall Tales
There's a reason I don't trust Michael Ignatieff or Stephen Harper or Ed Stelmach or the Oil Patch when they talk about cleaning up the Athabasca Tar Sands - it's because I was a parent so I know better.
Most of us are familiar with this scenario. The young teenager has left her bedroom in an awful mess. You find her watching a favourite TV show. You ask her to clean her room and she says she'll get right on to it. An hour later you find her still before the TV watching some other show. That's when what started as a request turns into a command and, like all commands, it comes with a time limit and an "or else."
Get your room clean in 15-minutes or else you won't be going out with your friends on Friday. Now that usually results in a clean bedroom because you've stipulated a time for performance and a meaningful consequence for non-performance.
How many years have we been fed empty promises by the Oil Patch that they'll be cleaning up their room in Athabasca any day now? Many, many years. And how many Tar Sands projects have actually been cleaned up?
Without a meaningful time stipulation and an effective "or else" consequence, the Ignatieff/Harper/Stelmach/Oil Patch promise of a clean Athabasca is about as convincing as that robot call I get around dinner time telling me I've just won a fabulous holiday cruise.
So why is the Ignatieff-Harper-Stelmach clan so unwilling to take these modest measures? They haven't got the guts to even speak the "or else" part but it's the time stipulation that really bothers them. With international pressure building for a new carbon reduction scheme and the supporting climate change science pouring in almost daily, nobody wants to admit that the technology has never been shown to be workable much less economically viable and, even if it was, there would be the standard 20-30 year lag time before a functioning sequestration system could be implemented. Global warming is happening. We don't have 20-30 years to solve Athabasca.
These clowns may be happy living in NeverLand, I'm not.
Most of us are familiar with this scenario. The young teenager has left her bedroom in an awful mess. You find her watching a favourite TV show. You ask her to clean her room and she says she'll get right on to it. An hour later you find her still before the TV watching some other show. That's when what started as a request turns into a command and, like all commands, it comes with a time limit and an "or else."
Get your room clean in 15-minutes or else you won't be going out with your friends on Friday. Now that usually results in a clean bedroom because you've stipulated a time for performance and a meaningful consequence for non-performance.
How many years have we been fed empty promises by the Oil Patch that they'll be cleaning up their room in Athabasca any day now? Many, many years. And how many Tar Sands projects have actually been cleaned up?
Without a meaningful time stipulation and an effective "or else" consequence, the Ignatieff/Harper/Stelmach/Oil Patch promise of a clean Athabasca is about as convincing as that robot call I get around dinner time telling me I've just won a fabulous holiday cruise.
So why is the Ignatieff-Harper-Stelmach clan so unwilling to take these modest measures? They haven't got the guts to even speak the "or else" part but it's the time stipulation that really bothers them. With international pressure building for a new carbon reduction scheme and the supporting climate change science pouring in almost daily, nobody wants to admit that the technology has never been shown to be workable much less economically viable and, even if it was, there would be the standard 20-30 year lag time before a functioning sequestration system could be implemented. Global warming is happening. We don't have 20-30 years to solve Athabasca.
These clowns may be happy living in NeverLand, I'm not.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Can You Feel the Heat? Libs Back Harper, Vote Down Pay Equity
That's what happens when you dance with the devil.
The Liberal Party of Canada (Ignatieff) was tonight forced to vote down pay equity. The pay equity issue was included in a Bloc Quebecois amendment motion that incorporated equalization formulae and rescinding the proposed tax breaks in the Harper-Ignatieff budget.
Way to go, guys. The Bloc had to stand up for pay equity - and you had to vote it down.
Doubtless though, the Liberal Party of Canada, to preserve its last shred of integrity and honour, will excise the pay equity issue from the Bloc's blatantly politico amendment and move to demand the very same themselves. Right? C'mon, we've had the glove across the face. This is the point where you stand up and defend your ideals, right?
What, I'm wrong? Oh, I see. We got rid of all those pesky ideals when we granted Israel pre-absolution for all the carnage it inflicted on Gaza. Of course, what was I thinking?
Tomorrow, Jack Layton will egg us on into defeating the amendment that scraps the tax cuts and frees the slaves. Do these guys sooo have us over the barrel, that same barrel we made.
Sorry, Iggy, but Ian is no Keith, not even remotely. And you're no Pierre, or Jean, or Alexander, you're no Lester, or Wilfred, or William Lyon, or Paul. Those guys made the ideals of this party and they made them on a perfectly defensible basis that people accepted. Yet, as though you would have far rather found a niche in a different party, you decided to accept second best - reshape the Liberal Party in your image according to your beliefs.
Ignatieff has pretty much shown his hand here and I think a lot of you Liberals who haven't been willing to acknowledge that yet, know it anyway.
Right now this country needs, so very much, a return to classic Liberal ideals that carry back to Alexander Mackenzie and the purpose of the party to stand for the weak every bit as much as anyone else. That's where we really started this thing - back at stonemason Alexander Mackenzie.
It's been a lumpy ride at times but, to hold and develop these ideals, you are going to be rocking some boats. Sometimes that was the big boats, usually it was the big boats, but, every now and then it was the little boats' turn to be rocked a bit. The idea was to balance all interests - in fairness.
This guy we've got now, he isn't much concerned about fairness. He's a one man show - he's the decider - and he'll gag his entire caucus to ensure his so very Harperesque iron-hand control of information. Let's face it, no matter whether you think Iggy is a conservative or not, you cannot deny that he likes Harper's style of running a party. We all found that contemptible when Harper did it but suddenly it's become just dandy when Ignatieff does it? Who actually gets the right to turn this Liberal Party of Canada's tap on and off? Did the job specification indicate "strongman" or "leader?" Here's a rule every Latin American knows by heart - never let a strongman in unless that's really what you want and unless you're willing to live with the inevitable outcome.
Now I am, for the first time in a long, long time, absolutely ashamed of the conduct of my party and its Members of Parliament. They've decided it's okay to pursue Harper not just to the right but also into the gutter.
And I guess that's where we part company.
The Liberal Party of Canada (Ignatieff) was tonight forced to vote down pay equity. The pay equity issue was included in a Bloc Quebecois amendment motion that incorporated equalization formulae and rescinding the proposed tax breaks in the Harper-Ignatieff budget.
Way to go, guys. The Bloc had to stand up for pay equity - and you had to vote it down.
Doubtless though, the Liberal Party of Canada, to preserve its last shred of integrity and honour, will excise the pay equity issue from the Bloc's blatantly politico amendment and move to demand the very same themselves. Right? C'mon, we've had the glove across the face. This is the point where you stand up and defend your ideals, right?
What, I'm wrong? Oh, I see. We got rid of all those pesky ideals when we granted Israel pre-absolution for all the carnage it inflicted on Gaza. Of course, what was I thinking?
Tomorrow, Jack Layton will egg us on into defeating the amendment that scraps the tax cuts and frees the slaves. Do these guys sooo have us over the barrel, that same barrel we made.
Sorry, Iggy, but Ian is no Keith, not even remotely. And you're no Pierre, or Jean, or Alexander, you're no Lester, or Wilfred, or William Lyon, or Paul. Those guys made the ideals of this party and they made them on a perfectly defensible basis that people accepted. Yet, as though you would have far rather found a niche in a different party, you decided to accept second best - reshape the Liberal Party in your image according to your beliefs.
Ignatieff has pretty much shown his hand here and I think a lot of you Liberals who haven't been willing to acknowledge that yet, know it anyway.
Right now this country needs, so very much, a return to classic Liberal ideals that carry back to Alexander Mackenzie and the purpose of the party to stand for the weak every bit as much as anyone else. That's where we really started this thing - back at stonemason Alexander Mackenzie.
It's been a lumpy ride at times but, to hold and develop these ideals, you are going to be rocking some boats. Sometimes that was the big boats, usually it was the big boats, but, every now and then it was the little boats' turn to be rocked a bit. The idea was to balance all interests - in fairness.
This guy we've got now, he isn't much concerned about fairness. He's a one man show - he's the decider - and he'll gag his entire caucus to ensure his so very Harperesque iron-hand control of information. Let's face it, no matter whether you think Iggy is a conservative or not, you cannot deny that he likes Harper's style of running a party. We all found that contemptible when Harper did it but suddenly it's become just dandy when Ignatieff does it? Who actually gets the right to turn this Liberal Party of Canada's tap on and off? Did the job specification indicate "strongman" or "leader?" Here's a rule every Latin American knows by heart - never let a strongman in unless that's really what you want and unless you're willing to live with the inevitable outcome.
Now I am, for the first time in a long, long time, absolutely ashamed of the conduct of my party and its Members of Parliament. They've decided it's okay to pursue Harper not just to the right but also into the gutter.
And I guess that's where we part company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)