Quotulatiousness

November 29, 2010

Blatchford: “Fantino wasn’t ‘there for the little guy’ in Caledonia”

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:45

It’s probably safe to say that Christie Blatchford isn’t a fan of Julian Fantino, the Conservative candidate in the Vaughan by-election:

Now when Gary McHale, then of Richmond Hill, first poked his nose into the occupation that was going on in the town of Caledonia south of Hamilton, and began in late December, 2006, organizing rallies for those who objected to the way the Ontario government and the OPP were handling the occupation, Mr. Fantino had just taken over as the OPP boss.

He immediately demonized Mr. McHale, not a Caledonia resident, as “an outsider” with “an agenda.”

In a flood of internal e-mails to the officers who worked for him (these later were made public as a result of Mr. McHale’s various disclosure requests in court) and in his public statements, the then-commissioner went to remarkable lengths to characterize Mr. McHale and his supporters, to borrow from one of the e-mails Mr. Fantino sent, as “interlopers who put their own personal agendas” ahead of the purportedly grand peace efforts at the negotiating table.

It was an astonishing use of the resources of the state against a private citizen who had done nothing but exercise the very freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.

Of course, what made Fantino such a “great cop” is exactly why the Conservatives want him on their team:

But the point is, for a man hailed as the Conservatives’ hot new law-and-order fellow, there are some real questions about his credentials, at least as they showed themselves in Caledonia where the rule of law was shattered, and a rather terrifying indication of his willingness to turn the full beam of his attention and power upon individuals whose only sin is to disagree with him.

In this regard, I’m afraid, Mr. Fantino seems a sadly good fit for a party whose approach to law-and-order strikes me increasingly as cartoonish.

It must be pointed out, however, that the Liberals also tried to recruit Fantino to run for them. That reflects just as badly on Michael Ignatieff’s party as it does on Stephen Harper’s party.

If he is elected by the voters of Vaughan, he’s rumoured to be a shoo-in for a cabinet position. That says it all for the federal Conservatives.

July 27, 2010

Four weeks in Canadian history

Filed under: Cancon, Humour — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:59

Scott Feschuk has been out of the country for a while. He’s delighted to find that something actually happened in Canada while he was away, and provides a useful summary for those of us not paying attention:

I’ve been away from Canada for four of the past five weeks, and it’s always fun to return and see what’s been missed. A comprehensive review:

1. The dominant domestic news story of the past month hinges on the intricacies of statistical analysis.

2. Finally demonstrating a populist touch, Michael Ignatieff has started production on his own Speed sequel: If his party’s popularity in opinion polls falls below 25 per cent, the Liberal Express explodes! (Subplot: If the bus keeps stopping for Timbits, the occupants of the Liberal Express explode!)

3. Conrad Black has apparently tunneled out of prison and escaped.

4. Upon being informed of No. 3, David Radler has soiled himself.*

* Not reported, but a safe assumption.

Don’t ever change, Canada.

June 9, 2010

A Canadian Liberal-Democrat party?

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:43

Andrew Potter pokes fun at the widely rumoured merger discussions that may or may not result in a combination of the Liberals and the New Democrats:

So here’s what I think, for what it matters to anyone: It’s a stupid idea. Not just stupid as in don’t-eat-that-fifth-taco stupid, but deeply, profoundly, moronic. If it were to come to pass, the only, and I mean only, beneficiaries would be the Conservatives. The NDP would lose, the Liberals would lose, and, more than anything, Canadians would lose.

[. . .]

The problem with the Liberals is not that their voter base it is divided, it is that their voter base has left them. And the reason their voter base has left them is because the Liberals have been acting like humungeous bozos for most of this decade. It is really not much more complicated than that. The former Natural Governing Party transformed itself into the Party of Humungeous Bozos, and if there is one thing Canadians have shown over the years is that you can’t get elected if you are a humungeous bozo. You can be an arrogant jerk (Trudeau), a slimeball (Mulroney), a gangster (Chretien) or a paranoid control freak (Harper), but the Canadian body politic is powerfully immune to bozos.

While I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, I’d expect the NDP rank-and-file to object strenuously to anything more than a tactical agreement to avoid running directly against the Liberals. The NDP, although I disagree with much of what they stand for, at least do believe in something. The only thing the Liberals stand for is their belief that they should be running the country.

Update: Steve Janke thinks it could be an ugly, ugly scenario indeed:

And there are plenty of senior Liberals utterly appalled at the idea of a merger, I think because they realize the NDP, though smaller, is more ideologically pure, and that the NDP would pull the merging Liberals leftward (though the NDP purity would itself be diluted, something the NDP membership would be worried about, and would probably struggle hard against). The new party would be much more NDP than Liberal.

These appalled Liberals would fight hard against a merger at a Liberal convention, and it seems to me that the Liberal Party could tear itself apart in a very ugly and public way.

Let’s say the merger amendment fails. What then? We could see a chaotic abandonment of the Liberal Party by disaffected Liberals (remember, I dialled the chaos way up on the scenario-a-tron). As of yesterday, the existence of Liberal-NDP merger talks is public knowledge. Even if it isn’t true, people now believe it to be true. The pro-merger Liberals in the rank-and-file might not accept a failure of those talks or a failure to accept a constitutional amendment to make a merger official. If they see their dream snatched away, we could see large numbers of Liberals tearing up their membership cards and switching parties, especially if they are led by someone like Bob Rae tearing up his membership card first.

April 22, 2010

QotD: Ignatieff’s gun registry position

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:40

Ignatieff feels that by tweaking the system, he can make it more palatable to rural Canadians and less objectionable to the eight Liberals who originally voted for its abolition. He thinks that by dropping the renewal fees registered gun owners pay and making failure to register a ticketing rather than criminal violation for first-time offenders, he has struck a compromise that will allow him to rein in his caucus while still being seen as a champion of gun control.

He hasn’t. Ignatieff’s plan won’t make a single Canadian safer. It will make the dysfunctional, obsolete registry more expensive while simultaneously making it weaker. The registry has already failed and permanently alienated large swaths of voters from the Liberal party. Why is Ignatieff the last person to realize this?

To accomplish his “goals,” Ignatieff has not only decided to write off any hopes for a Liberal expansion into rural Canada for a generation, further relegating his party to also-ran status anywhere outside of downtown Toronto and Montreal, but has also called into question his much-discussed respect for Parliament. Private member’s bills have traditionally been opportunities for all MPs to vote their conscience — an important tradition Ignatieff would set aside just to prop up the long-gun registry.

Matt Gurney, “Michael Ignatieff’s brand new mistake”, National Post, 2010-04-22

September 26, 2009

Rick Mercer explains voter apathy

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:44

Rick Mercer has diagnosed the real reason nobody really wants a fall election in Canada:

It may be a myth that the Inuit have 100 different words to describe snow; it is an absolute truth that people on Parliament Hill have twice as many words to describe Stephen Harper’s various levels of angry.

[. . .]

Voting Conservative is not a problem for a majority of Canadians; we’ve done it before. Voting for an angry guy who thinks we’re stupid and will believe anything? That takes some getting used to.

[. . .]

The Liberals should have a bit of an advantage this time around. Having been beaten badly in the last election, they quickly took Stéphane Dion out behind the barn and he hasn’t been seen since. Immediately afterward, there was a puff of white smoke and the Liberal party suddenly had a brand new leader in Michael Ignatieff. He is by all accounts highly qualified, having dazzled many people at dinner parties for decades.

Mr. Ignatieff is, as we speak, surrounded by a brigade of young people in pointy shoes and designer glasses who work for him, worship him and twitter about him. Why we should vote for him? I’ve read the tweets; I’ve yet to see an answer.

[. . .]

Canadians have never come close to electing a New Democrat government federally, and yet Jack dreams. This is fine, as dreams are important.

The problem with Jack is, we all saw how excited he got when he actually thought that he was going to be a part of a coalition government. It wasn’t a normal excitement; it was the kind of excitement that scares other passengers on a plane.

Three excellent reasons to stay away from the polls. If there’s an election this year, I’m hoping there’ll be a smaller party I can cast my ballot for (without needing to hold my nose).

« Newer Posts
« « You like paintball? You’ll love this . . .| Those confusing/conflicting Arctic ice stories » »

Powered by WordPress