Sunday, August 24, 2008

Dear mouth-breathing wankers: A simple question, if I may.

Not surprisingly, the latest Canadian wanky meme is that Stephen the Rotund does too have the legal right to call an election, as long as you allow an excruciating and mind-numbing parsing of the actual legislation. And while there is so much more that can (and will) be written on this topic, all of this weaselly, right-wing dodging, weaving and tap dancing does bring up a simple question. To wit:

If Stephen Harper does, in fact, have the legal right to call an election, does Governor-General Michaelle Jean have a similar and legal right to say "no"?

It really is a simple yes/no question, isn't it? And I have already pointed out how the very same legislation that Canada's wanks are currently jerking off to very clearly uses the word "discretion" with respect to the Governor-General.

So, wankers, your opinions, if you would. As I have already made clear, this is a simple yes-or-no question based on nothing more than a careful examination of the very same legislation you are all currently drooling over. And it would be ever so delightful if you could answer it with a simple "yes" or "no", and not with an outraged, illogical diatribe involving phrases such as "unusual", "shocking", "unprecedented", or "that fucking, Haitian voodoo princess black bitch nigger who should go back where she came from." Or anything of the sort -- I think you get my drift.

Well? Yes or no? Here at CC HQ, the lines are open and operators are standing by to call Patrick Ross a dink.


Sheena said...

Sheena advises that wanna be callers do their mandatory King-Byng reading before venturing into speculatoryvilleland.

Ti-Guy said...

Yeah, seriously. I doubt she's in the mood for a constitutional crisis, although, given how shrill and shrieky the "Conservatives" are...over everything...I'm certainly in the mood to witness one. It would be a spectacle for the ages.

In the meantime, it's enjoyable watching teh Boggin' Torees play lawyer and attempt to legally make the case that Harper can call election, when the simplest, most likely scenario is that the GG will do what the PM requests.

James Bow said...

It's clear: the Governor General has no legal obligation to dissolve parliament. If Stephen Harper comes to her and tells her that parliament is disfunctional and he can no longer manage it, she can turn to Stephane Dion and ask him to try and forge a coalition that could support a new throne speech, and make him Prime Minister.

I would not recommend that she do this, however, because this has happened once before, when Lord Byng disagreed with Mackenzie King's assessment and tried to make Arthur Meighen prime minister. King sold this as an unelected official (from Britain, no less) thwarting the will of the people, and the people bought it. The new government fell within days, and King's Liberals were returned with a clear majority.

You don't want to give Harper that cudgel to beat you with, do you?

The Seer said...

And if Stephen Harper does get to cal his election Sandy can add that to her list of accomplishments!

Reality Bites said...

I just checked the Ontario legislation and it contains the same weasel words. Indeed, there's really nothing preventing a PM or premier with a majority from calling an early election..

The weasel clauses are probably required constitutionally, but there is no question that Harper's musings are 100% opposite to the spirit under which the legislation was enacted.

He's a liar and a fraud. Always has been, always will be, on every conceivable issue - except for sucking George Bush's cock at every possible opportunity, there's not a single principle on which he hasn't reversed himself, lied, misled or otherwise betrayed his supporters.

Hard to make Jean Chretien and Paul Martin look like men of unwavering principle, but he manages.

MgS said...

Harper's "Fixed Election Law" is fundamentally meaningless - and was the day that it was introduced in the HoC.

Underlying it all is the Constitution itself which mandates a maximum life of a parliament of five years; and the fact that the Governor General has the sole power to dissolve parliament.

Harper's law does nothing to change that reality, nor does it impose any kind of monitoring or penalty for failure to comply.

In fact, if you look a little further, about all it does is oblige Elections Canada to take certain steps on a particular date, regardless of whether a writ has been dropped or not.

Patrick Ross said...

Well, big guy, since you were kind enough to drop my name (and isn't it amusing how the obsessive name-dropping tends to skyrocket depending on how furiously I'm kicking your pathetic ass at any given time), I'll weigh in:

The answers are:

Yes, Stephen Harper can call an election. Yes, Michelle Jean can refuse to dissolve parliament -- as happened to William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1925, when Lord Byng refused to dissolve parliament.

(Seriously, do some research, you twit. If you're going to allow your pet douchebag Lindsay Stewart to accuse conservatives of hating Canada the least you could do is learn some Canadian history.)

Now, on to the important stuff:

Stephen Harper should not call an election. Yes, he did make a promise to honour his own fixed election date legislation (duh), a promise which, although he hasn't broken yet, he would be breaking if he called an election.

If Stephen Harper wants to pay the political price I suspect he'll pay if he goes ahead, then he should just go ahead and do it. But he'll be making it harder to get my vote.

In the meantime, you might want to remind Lindsay to do a little fact checking before making himself look stupid, educate Lulu as to what an actual "fact" is, and get around to truthfully answering that question of whether or not you actually support "choice".

Cheers, kids!

Ti-Guy said...

the least you could do is learn some Canadian history.

This from someone who thought the MacDonald-Cartier highway was named after Jacques Cartier.

Ha, ha, ha!

liberal supporter said...

This from someone who thought the MacDonald-Cartier highway was named after Jacques Cartier.
Well that's just an honest mistake. What was the 401 called before all the service centres were taken over by McDonalds, complete with naming rights?