myata

Because it's not relevant to the topic, I'll keep it very short. There's compromise and a compromise. There can be no compromise on the principle that a law of the land must be observed by everybody. It's a foundation of democracy and a compromise on it would mean one thing: lawlessness. And no, it's not hipocrisy. Simply that one solution cannot be good for all situations.

And I thought that majority of Canadians, through their elected representatives, and a vote in the Parliament, have decided to be a part of this treaty. And, to my knowledge, that hasn't changed, just yet? But of course, if you speak for the majority - what can one say?

The fact that Canada is a democratic coutry ruled by law. Ministers are sworn to uphold the law of the land. Kyoto is the law of the land. The law can be changed, through democratic process; or followed and upheld; it cannot be "refused" if someone believes otherwise, even if they happen to be in the government. Sneaky cons either don't understand, or deliberatly ignore the requirements of democracy. Like, they tried. Real hard. And again, opposition did not make Harper cons the way they are. Altough it certainly should do a better job exposing them for what they are. I sincerely hope it will be an issue in the next election. And I'm going to bring it up in my riding at the least.

I agree that Senate in its present form does not exactly agree with what can be expected of a democratic institution in this century. However simply disbanding it would mean losing its valuable function of expert evaluation of legislation which it has been playing till now quite well. Making its elected would bring partisan politics even more, and negatively affect its only function that is of benefit to the society. Maybe appointment of senators should given entirely to the decision of provinces? Along with limitation of the term to some reasonable limit, it may be a simple solution that would preserve the benifit of senate while making it more up to date with the state of democracy in the country.

Putin needed a huge win for two reasons: - possible modification of constition to allow him to stay on; - justifying his special future status the leader of all and everything after and if he decides to go

Now speaking of obtuseness ... And I sincerely hoped we were over with it. No really, its very simple: they either cancel Kyoto via a vote in Parliament, or honestly and in good faith comply with it. Try again?

Or they would if they could, but with Iraq hot potato still in their hands, I deeply doubt that. Looks like just some more of tough talk to hide the expected "oops" with another bs WMD scare. Mostly for internal US consumption too. I wouldn't be too worried.

If so, you'll sure have no problem answering one simple question (away with obtuseness): why - won't - Harper's Conservatives - say it in the open - to the public - and bring it for a vote - in the Parliament - as democractic process - which is btw still alive in this country - requires?

Also Wild Bill: Sure, there may be problems with the current state of democracy in this country. I, for once, think that its a shame that a leader like Chretien had to take the entire party down the drain, before he's finally let go. This can be changed (hopefully, to the better), but again, only through democratic process itself. Whatever its deficiencies, it's proven many times better than unchecked individials or groups imposing their understanding of right and goods on all. And in no way do these deficiencies give anybody, whether in power or not, the privilege to ignore the law of the land. Maybe, a referendum would be a good idea. If only to make us really understand and commit to what's at issue. With a crystal ball like this, why wouldn't you turn it to better purpose? E.g reading the mind of Bill Gates, and making a fortune. Then donating it to the party of your choice. Of course, there's a huge distance between poor implementation of law and deliberate negligence of it. It's off the topic though. You want to discuss whether Liberals supposed inaction, in their past years in power, amounted to contempt of this law? I'm open to that. But it won't change the fact that Harpers cons are guilty of it one single bit. Lot of far reaching guessing - but any practical evidence of any? Perhaps even arguments that can be substaniated with logic, rather than fuzzy theoretising what other people think?

OK, I guess that's the last resort. I consent you points on spelling and I'll cheer for you in the next Grade 5 spelling bee! But he does create an appearance of talking, or behaving like a Progressive by not acting on his promise to retract from Kyoto. And by not implementing it in good faith, as any democratic politician would have to do, he's putting his social conservative ideology ahead of the existing law of the land. No change, unless you make yourself see it where it doesn't exist. Progressive conservative could support Kyoto and work on implementing it; Social conservative would do their best to formally withdraw from it; Harper cons will behave as though they accepts it, even if reluctantly (really - they won't openly challenge it in the Parliament, will they), but then, as one of the participants here rightfully said, simply "refuse to implement it". This is sneaky conservatism at its worst.

Are you being, as they say, "deliberately obtuse"? Whether Harper promised to keep Canada in Kyoto (as I, mistakenly, stated) or take it out of it (as you pointed out), does not change the fact that he still has to observe and implement the current law of the land in either case. For the x,000 time now, Harper can follow up on his word and bring the issue up for a debate in the Parliament; that would be "being true to his word" and an honest policy. Or he can put it off for a while, and work in good faith on implementing the existing law, which is Kyoto. Which would also be an honest policy, though not really true to his original word. What he don't have a privilige to do, whether he understands it or not, is to pretend to accept the will of majority, while quitely behind close doors do everything he could to ignore, diminish and denigrate it. That would be dishonest and sneaky politicking that must be stopped asap. This is what was said from the start, and I fail to see any change in my position at all.

Not really, no change at all. I fully keep to my point that without a parliamentary debate and a vote in his favour, he does not have the privilige to ignore, kick, denigrate and such, the current law of the land. This is sneaky policy or lack of democracy, or contempt to it, whatever you like more. He's fully in his right to bring his view out for the debate and win, then have his way. He didn't and isn't doing it. He's ignoring the law of land simply because it does not fit into his ideology. This is sneaky conservatism, in action. As with death penalty. As with other cases, mentioned in this thread. Also taking this chance to correct some of your earlier posings, one last time: the OP makes it very clear that 1) I have no problem with conservatism in general; 2) not even with the socially conservative brand of it; but only with this new flavour that does not say what it means and holds in contempt democratic process. Voila, I think it can't be said any clearer now, so next time you have an urge to use the h-word, please address yourself to this post.

Now, now, calm down. You'll sure do better next time.

So you don't object that this is indeed an affront to democracy? We can certainly go on to discuss how the opposition did or should react to it now. Acting on their promises would be to bring their ideas for an open debate and a vote in the Parliament, as democratic process requires. Not kicking the existing law of the land under the table. That's not acting on promises. This is showing contempt for the law.

What a joke! You mean, Harper playing these games around the law, is somehow the fault of the opposition? You mean, he seriously honestly wanted to have a debate on all these issues, and maybe, even, have a vote, but seeing opposition so weak, he just couldn't resist the temptation? The argument is wearing thinner by minute - soon it'll be gone in smoke, completely.

We can say that if you provide an example (better still, multiple examples, and within pretty short time period) where another party ignored existing law, or attempted to devise ingenous ways around it. Spot on. I don't know what they are risking or not. But they don't have the privilege to "refuse to abide by Kyoto" while it's the law of the land. That's what yourself, and Harper cons seem to be failing to understand. It's OK for an individual, but a party displaying such a glaring lack of understanding of the basics of democracy should take a timeout. Long one, if necessary. The law is there not becasue Harper may think that it's good for us (or not). It's there becasue it was adopted through democratic process. Nobody is saying Liberals were great on the issue, but its no excuse for ignoring the law. If Harper wanted to change it, the way is open. Why won't he? Could it be that it's not just the Liberals? Maybe, majority of Canadians support Kyoto? And their elected representatives in the Parliament won't let Harper do it? Anyways, while he's thinking about it, he does not have that privilege "to refuse" to abide by a law. On the contrary, as a minister he has sworn to abide by the law and has an obligation to implement it in good faith. Anything less is being in contempt of democracy.

I can't care less. You cannot dump your intellectual garbage here. So unless you're willing to educate yourself on the rules of this board, next time you're going to deal with the mod.

And why won't you contribute something smart for a change? And if you can't contribute anything smart, how about keeping your (whatever you name them) comments to yourself? Just an idea - enjoy.

Definitely the agenda of rights and democracy is something to take this socially conservative crowd on. And speaking of the economy, I fail to see anything stellar from this government. Riding a wave of good times, maybe. Building the economy of the future? Not really. Given their stance on the environment; cities agenda; country wide issues like child care; Nothing to boast about. I agree with Dion, it's time to take them on!

Signing is only first step. Will, working in faith, and achieving results may help though. Both us, and those who may follow. Until we do, it's pointless to point fingers. Nothing will happen.

You mean, he's now working on implementing the spirit of Kyoto in good faith? The first sign of which would probably be changing the framework of reference to something that else understands. So that 20% below 2006 level by 2020 is actually 10% above 1990 (ie in common tems). Makes a wealth of difference. But OK, I'm eager to hear what exactly is that "more"? Surely not the old Liberal programs under new names? Or new old voluntary emission targets? Or the programs implemented by provinces on their own, with no guidance or participation from Harpers governmet?

Think of this: would Canada signing such agreement help other countries to get onboard (of course with a big view that it'll reduce actual global greenhouse emissions)? Or work against it? If it would help, why would it be wrong for Harper to sign on to it? Especially, if his stated goals exceed the required levels (if they exceed that is. In the correct (ie used by everybody else) framework of reference). And what would be the alternative? Bush's voluntary non binding program? He may be right. Or wrong. But democratic will of people was expressed. And until Harper manages to have majority support for his position, he's obligated as democratic politician, to implement in good faith the current law of the land. That's what he is apparently having issues with. That's what sneaky cons have issues with. They don't need democracy. They already know what they are right. They know what's good for the rest of us, even if we may think otherwise.

Not really. Nothing wrong with holding any views - if they brought it out in the open for public debate. That's not what sneaky cons do though. It was ratified in the Parliament. Remember? If he understands it, and were to behave as a democratic politician, he would work in good faith on implementing the spirit of the agreement, until such time as he manages to gather majority support for his position. Or change his position to that of the majority. What he can't do as a democratic politician is to pay lip service to majority position, while quietly and behind close door ignore and sabotage it. This is the sneaky conservative way. Harper's way. I certainly hope it will, when I see sneaky cons kicked out of power. Not for being conservative. Not for holding any particular views. But for not understanding the meaning of democracy and democratic process.

Oh my. OK. Maybe Harper disagrees (deep inside), I'm ready to accept it with any appropriate apologies. But the matter of fact remains all the same: Canada is still in the agreement. And until Harper and his cons take it to a democratic debate, and a vote, and win it, they are obligated to comply with it and implment it in good faith. Democratic process is clear and precise: you either win the majority on your side, or follow the decision supported by majority even if it goes against your personal views. Or, of course, resign. This is not what Harper cons do. They do not put their plans out for democratic debate. And they don't respect, in good faith, the will of majority already expressed through democratic process. They are in contempt.

Kyoto was not intended to be the solution. Only a first step toward finding working solutions. Sitting on the couch pointing fingers at somebody else won't do anything, ever. Doing that while legally obligated to implement it is no less that showing contempt for democratic will of people.