myata

No seriously. Let's serioulsy and in good faith assume the logic of our PM: China / or India: yes, we do feel obligated to take the first step and impose on us severe binding emissions targets, so that wise and wealthy countries like the US and Canada, which have been burining and polluting unchecked with no targets for the last 150 years, will follow our lead and maybe will eventually start cutting emissions of their own. Likely? About as much as seeing pigs fly. No problem, Harper won't be deterred by obstacles.

Seems to me you may have problems in comprehending what you read. Please reread the post, slowly, and repeat in necessary, before commenting. What was said is, "the fact of being elected into minority government does not entitle them to neglect democratic process". Canada's participation in Kyoto is a law adopted through a democratic process. And the only way it can be changed is via democratic process itself. That is, debate and vote in the Parliament. By refusing to implement, in good faith, the current law of the land, sneaky cons are showing blant and obvious contempt for democracy. Period.

It appears that Chavez lost the referendum: Story. Sounds like an impressive victory for democracy in Venezuela.

What further research is needed? Canada is still in Kyoto - even if Harper wants to pretend what it's not. See, this is the problem with these guys and you pointed it (thanks) spot on. Canada entered into the agreement via democratic process (parliamentary ratification). And having become the law, it can only be changed via democratic process itself. Which Harperites did not dare to do. In fact, for about 1.5 years now, Harper isn't even talking about withdrawing from Kyoto. But, unlike any democratic politician, who would have no choice but to honestly and in good faith comply with the law of the land, until and unless it's changed through democratic process, Harper's crowd ignored, sabotaged and diminished it, whenever and however they could. I.e plain and simple, showed contempt for democratic process and the democracy itself. Same with death penalty. And the same, as it appears to be, with gun control. This is the principal matter. This crowd does not undestand democracy - which requires democratic process and holds law for everybody. They believe that by virtue of being elected they somehow obtained the privilige to not follow democratic process. Be above the law of the land. To ignore and sabotage it. For that reason alone they need to be kicked out at the earliest opportunity, and not be let withing a gunshot of power, until they do some self education on the basics of democratic governance.

Yes. I think their chief problem is that they don't really understand democracy. They think its all about getting a leader who knows what's good for his serfs better then themselves. Big daddy who can take good care of his children. And no, I don't want it to be partisan. Chretien has gotten pretty arrogant in his later years - to the detriment of good policy and, ultimately, the country itself. It was time for him to go, although I hoped they'd do it in a more responcible fashion. But, simply to put things into perspective - by that time he's had some quite extraordinary feats under his belt - such as keeping the country toghether after a near miss referendum - recovering the economy from the bottoms hit under Mulroney - and winning three consequtive majorities. Harper only managed to get a minority - and a very slim one at that - and already showing attitudes of some minor Caesar. The guy plain and simple needs a cool down. To understand where and when he is. Do some reading about democracy.

OK my fault - he did campaign under that premise. And if he withdrew from Kyoto after the election, following his promise, it would have been honest. This is not what he did, however. He said he'll keep Canada in Kyoto (could it be because he didn't dare to openly go against the will of the majority of Canadians?). At this point an honest position would be then to work on implementing the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty. But Harper's people did all what they could to diminish it. Same with death penalty. Harper will never dare to come out open and say that he wants death penalty reinstated. But then he won't just accept the status quo either. Instead he'll say one thing, but quietly, behind closed doors, and with no comments, will do something else. This is what sneaky conservatism is all about.

More hot air. My issue is not with Harper changing his intentions bad as it can be. It's with him not stating, openly and publicly, what they are in the first place. Only Harper can say that he'll keep country in Kyoto, then do all he possibly could to torpedoe it. He'll say that there will be no returning to death penalty, then quietly pulls it in for Canadians convicted abroad. Says openness and transparency, but runs one of the most controlled and closed governments in the recent history. Somebody should be keeping a tally of infamous "no comments" by his ministers. This is worse than inaction. It's contempt for democracy. Or, if you want to call it, hidden agenda, indeed

Mr Mauser, let's clarify, for the public, is Harpers adviser from Simon Fraser University. Association of police chiefs, on the other hand, found the tool useful and recommended to implement it. For some reason, Mr Mauser's opinion holds greater weight with the PM than that of the country's police chiefs. And now, armed with Mr Mauser's support Harper is going to make the blast fighting the crime. Having scrapped two tools that police specifically asked to keep. More questions. No answers. No comments.

Harper agreed to not take Canada out of Kyoto. I'm not going to do your work for your. Information commissioner: Information commissioner on transparency of Harper's government The rest of the claims is either common knowledge or has been confirmed. Obviously all you've got is hot air though. Like Harper cons. Coincidence? Or by definition?

More on sneaky cons transparency right from this morning's CBC report: Stockwell Day postponed implementation of policy requiring marking imported guns. Against recommendations of police and indefinetly. Needless to mention it was buried somewhere in the depths of the privy council web site, no discussion, debate held. And "no comments" from Day either. Details here: Globe & Mail story. Some indications are that gun lobby may have been involved. Let's see: pumping hysteria about non-existing crime problem; while quietly doing away with useful tools that actually help police deal with real crimes (gun registry; imported gun markings). Sounds familiar already?

Could, maybe, - but wouldn't. What we have for now, is the "intensity" targets. Those that will let emissions grow, even faster than ever, as long as production grows faster. Something must be holding them back. Something very important. Not lack of will of Canadians - great majority consider cutting emissions as a priority. Must be something else. Let me guess ... thinking ... wait, could it be their ideology? I won't whitewash Liberals on that. Chretien was bathing in self importance bordering on arrogance in his last years. That energy was much better spent on the environment agenda. Still Liberals had if not excuse then some points in having to recover the economy first. And some programs were actually set up and working. Harper has all the cards in - economy at record high, consensus in the public that something needs to be done, lots of studies and research done in the previous years - and still has nothing to show but recycled Liberal programs, stalling and tons of hot air talk.

Harper promised to not scrap Kyoto - and he all but did through the back door. "Caucus" that refuses to answer any questions - avoids public debate as open fire - talks through dumb witted attack ads instead - releases important decisions with no discussion on Friday night - does not respect media - shows contempt for democratic process - that should suffice for now? (I recall something about both media and access to information commissioner rating this government as one of the worst in the recent history but won't claim it without some further research yet). Oh that very special democracy. And in favour of our own laws. Bypassing clear will of majority of Canadians, and democratic process at the same time. That's our sneaky con boys! How smart! And how sneaky!

Memory doesn't serve you well on this; We're talking about openness and transparency in the government; obviously, one act is not a replacement for it. Harper's government is as closed and inaccessible, as a government can be. They did reintroduced it for Canadians in other countries. And, you're quite right, without any mentioning of any such plan in the campaign, or any other public forum. Still need more?

Slowly and carefully ... in case you can't take in more that 306 words at a time ... what I'm saying is that Harper cons deliberately avoid all open discussions of their agenda. Thats my main worry. I don't care if socially conservative bunch a la Reform Party came up with a vote on abortion or referendum on gay marriage. As long as they state that that's what they want, in public. Harper cons are saying one thing, but quetly through backdoor policies do 100% opposite. Take Kyoto; take death penalty policy; take transparency; need more examples?

Israel acting "from position of strengh" (its own? or perhaps, feeleng the gentle prop from big daddy?) is nothing new. The result will most likely be the same, too.

So far there's been two major flavours of Conservatism in this country: Progressive (old PC) and Social (old Reform Party). While there were some distinct traits and some commonalities between the two, position of both parties on important issues were quite clear and consistent. Now Harper possibly inspired by Blair, appears to be inventing the "third way". The new brand can be most easily identified by it's creative approach to communicating its position on diverse issues. Unlike earlier groups that used to say, and do, more or less what they think, Harpers cons took up the motto "talk as Progressive, act as social (con)". This distinct fingerprint can be seen all over the place, take the environment agenda, where sneaky cons efforts were focused mainly on muddling the issues and diminishing Canada's international stance; "openness" and "transparency" through secrecy and control; death penalty policy changes, and such. Sneaky cons also exhibit so far unexplained dislike and mistrust of free media, open dispute and democratic process, showing clear preference for the US style attack adds, controlled statements conconted in the depth of the PM office, spin in the best traditions of T.Blair, debate (when they have to, as it appears to be their last choice) on the level of junior pre-kindergarten, and back door policy changes. Despite (or maybe, in their view at least?, by merits) of these, shall we say, peculiarities of character, sneaky cons harbour great aspirations to gain access to full power mode (aka majority government) one day, when they would be able to influence, modify and reopen the only thing that's been keeping them in check so far, i.e the law of the land. No doubt the preferred instruments in this quest will be further enhanced attack ads, even more controlled statements, and greatly superior masking of the gap between talk and act.

What do you mean "not worse"? If you took the time to examine things for yourself, rather than repeating after Harper, you'd realize that for the large part of their mandate Liberals were cleaning up the mess in the economy and finances they inherited from the previous conservative government. Imposing serious restrictions on the economy back then would have been suicidal. True, things could (and should) have been going faster once the economy rebounded, but that "13 years of inaction" is a total crap - like pretty much everything that's coming these days from Harper's bunch. And then, isn't it time to examine their own record? They've inherited economy flying at record high; set environment as one of their priorities; two years down the road - and what's the result? Shuffled up and down around Kyoto; cancelled and then reestablished old Liberal prorams; confused everybody with totally new and original reference time (2006) that nobody else on this planet understands; continued to confuse everybody with "pollution", "efficiency targets", "voluntary technologies" and God knows what else. One thing that is not happening and in my estimate isn't going to happen, while Harper cons are in the government that is, is a serious and responsible federal program for actual reduction of greehouse emissions. For very simple reason, that actual, true priortities of this crowd lie somewhere else. Hint: tough on crime; death penalty; less active and independent international role for Canada; more sucking to the US; and so on.

This crowd simply won't do whatever doesn't fit into their agenda, no matter if majority of Canadians want it of it's the law of the land. They'll kick and scream and use any stall tacktics or obvious BS, but they just won't do the thing. They need to be kicked out asap.

Sure, it's lot easier to pass hot air, a la Harpers' bunch. For the lack of better argument, maybe?

Nobody knows where the final spoils will go. These conflicts play out in generations. You mean, to perpetuate the situation by supporting one side in the conflict? I've no doubt about that.

Contempt to open democratic process is quickly becoming a trademark of this government. Take their games with environment and Kyoto, which most Canadians consider a priority while Harper's bunch quietly torpedo whenever they can; dislike of media; controlled statements; attack ads; sudden changes of policy. All fits very well together.

Caught a piece of polemics on environment from today's Parliament. (free interpretation) Dion: "why would not Canada accept binding targets?". Harper: "till everybody on the planet agrees to binding targets, we aren't playing in this game" What a piece of bull! Do they themselves believe the cr.. they're trying to feed us? That Canada which enjoys one of the highest living standards in the world, won't accept binding targets until third world countries with millions of hungry to feed, will? Once again, talk against walk issue, becoming well familiar with this crowd. Quite obviously, and unlike majority of Canadians, they plain and simple, aren't interested. Doesn't fit in their grand plan. Unlike - what? What exactly are their priorities? Real ones, I mean. Blowing crime agenda out of all proportions? Stealthy ouvertures toward death penalty? All incompassing secrecy and control which supposed to signify openness and transparency?

I don't mean to say that the conflict between Catholic and Protestant communities is the same as the one in Palestine. Rather, that an honest approach to settlement must necessarily involve 1) addressing the causes of the conflict; and 2) all main parties. So far, as with Oslo before this, the US is playing into Israel's game. I.e. pretending that the conflict developed out of the blue and the settlement will be about trading military superiourity of Israel (supported by the US) for further land consessions from Arabs. Until this changes, and for real, I wouldn't expect any major progress in the situation. The recipe for settlement is known since a long time. To remind, it's as simple as: 1) recongnition and apology for past injustices; 2) fair complensation; 3) fair land settlement based on 1967 borders and mutual recognition of two states. The moment Israel agrees to it (or / and US uses its influence to make it agree to it) I'll believe in peaceful intentions. Till then, business as usual.

I'm not very optimistic. Hamas is not invited. Settlement of past injustices not mentioned. Sounds like the same old "the only peace you can have will be on our terms". At best, it may turn out to be something along the lines of Oslo, which dragged for awhile then died miserably. Honest attempt at peace would involve going to the roots of the conflict, and all parties involved in it. See e.g. Northern Ireland.

The previous policy was based on Canadian law. The law that does not allow executions of people in this country. That does not allow death penatly as a valid sentence. Harper cons did not challenge the law. Would not have a debate in the parliment. Tried to sneak it in behind doors as a "policy change". And got caught red handed. Does it speak about their (lack of) respect for democracy? About their values, which they're trying to sneak in around open democractic process? About their hidden agenda? Volumes!