Man, I love being prophetic -- that's one of the joys that comes with total omniscience. But I digress. Onward.
Over two weeks ago, I wrote this piece, in which I challenged readers to supply examples of what would constitute clear and unequivocal lying on the part of Stephen Harper if he won the election. One obvious example would have been using the notwithstanding clause to overturn the same-sex marriage law, since Harper insisted he would never do such a thing.
So, what do we make of Harper's latest demonstrations of completely unethical behaviour? First, there's the David Emerson fiasco. Technically, did Harper "lie" here? I don't know. Like many other whiny Canadian wankers, he might have bitched about Belinda Stronach defecting from the party but, technically, I don't know that he ever promised he'd never get involved in something like that himself. So perhaps this doesn't constitute a "lie." Technically. (Whether Emerson "lied" in misrepresenting himself to voters is another matter.)
But what about Harper installing the unelected Michael Fortier in the Senate, then appointing him to his cabinet? It's common knowledge that Harper wanted Senate reform, to replace the notion of appointed senators with elected ones:
Calling Canada's appointed Senate a relic of the 19th century, Harper said a Senate chair should be occupied by someone with a democratic mandate. Canadians, he continued, should be able to mark their ballot for their senator as well as for their MP.
But, technically, did Harper actually promise he'd never appoint his own? Probably not, but I suggest this is as close to a lie as you can get. If you run on a platform of Senate reform and slagging the idea of appointed senators, I think voters have the right to feel deceived if your first official act is to appoint one of your own. But I'm willing to hear other opinions on the subject.
In any event, I think we might all want to steel ourselves for a shitload of dishonesty coming out of this government at this point. Harper hasn't even settled in, and already he's proven what sort of hypocritical sleazebag he can be. I'm pretty sure we haven't seen the end of it.
I'M CURIOUS: Did Stephen Harper ever make any actual "promises" with respect to the Senate? From here, we read of Harper's "promise to let provinces have their senators elected." Did Harper actually make such a promise? Or, if not, what did he say?
2 comments:
You know a politician is lying when his mouth is open......
Funny. I contacted my MP immediately after the election to ask precisely what was meant by "senate reform". I was given a copy-and-paste job from their party platform and no further information. The platform stated, though:
"The CPC will:
• Begin reform of the Senate by creating a national process for choosing elected Senators from each province and territory.
• Propose further reforms to make the Senate an effective, independent, and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions."
So no, he didn't technically lie. But he did the opposite of what he promised. I guess for the drooling right wing that's enough. Let's face it, if you voted for Harper your standards would have to be pretty low in the first place.
Post a Comment