For those fed up with Harper's undemocratic behavior, tell your MP

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

Nope. Anyone who's engaged enough in the process to post in a political forum is far different than the general public. The general public cares more about core issues. Like the economy, etc. Not a perfectly legitimate parlaimentary procedure provided for in our constitution.

It seems that Canadians may disagree. The prorogation seems to have legs. Maybe you're hoping for some sort of wish fulfillment here, that if you just keep saying "Canadians don't care" over and over that magically, they won't. But the Tories are dropping down from the near 40% highs. What's more, even some who would traditionally be in their court are angered at a pointless prorogation.

And this odd notion that because the Constitution affords certain powers, that opportunistic use of such powers is just a-okay is troubling in and of itself. It demonstrates a degree of amorality that is stunning. It's precisely this "ends justifies the means" that got the Liberals into so much trouble.

Besides, to my mind, the real abuse of power isn't this prorogation, but the 2008 prorogation, which, I will reiterate, is the only time in modern Westminster history that a government has evaded a Confidence Motion in such a manner. The last time I can even find anything like it is Charles I's prorogation of Parliament in 1629 which lead to the infamous Personal Rule. Now, if you don't mind those parallels, than I wonder if you know a damned thing about the history of our particular kind of democracy.

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

The facts and comprehension speak for themselves. People are upset and it's not because the Liberals or other people have tried to spook people. This is coming from below. 85,000 people on facebook in 3 days speaks to that entirely.

Conservatives are, quite adeptly, ignoring the entire issue around prorogment. No matter how many times people actually explain how and why the house has been proroged before and the difference between these last two examples, they'll always just smile and say, what difference? It's all the same. The only people here seemingly working from a party playbook are the people defending this.

Anyways, here's the #1 story from the globe and mail.

Economist vents spleen on PMs decision to prorogue

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/the-economist-vents-spleen-on-pms-decision-to-prorogue/article1422507/

WOW OK that's big!!! the

Economist never dos that to a conservative & for the editor to do that need i say more

The Economist is very mad than!!

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

Just by the traffick on this site and other on proroguation related threads on other blogs it would seem that Canadians DO care.

Good pont!!

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

ok all of you need to see this

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15651

WOW!

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

ok all of you need to see this

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15651

WOW!

Yes, it's impossible now for Tories and their supporters to declare it all "partisan polls".

ZenOps · January 7, 2010

They do. It's extremely unfortunate, though, that the most rabid amongst us seem not to even bother with what the facts and comprehension have to say. The Canadian government had nothing to do before 1975? WTF!? A person can come up with a reason to hate anything, if they're allowed to revise history to suit, that is.

*cough*

Well the first enacted act the Canadian parliament in Canada (not the British in Westminster) was in 1952, a change in the number of seats in the House of commons and gave the Yukon one representative. Up until that point, every change to the "Constitution" was done by the British under British Law.

For all intensive purposes - the Canadian government could not have been concieved up to that point and nothing at all would be different in Canada. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

That a government can say "Well we USED to prorogue all the time way back when, why can't I do it now?" is weaksauce. The Canadian government DID have little to no responsibility back then. If they want to keep the power to prorogue, I want the power to not have to pay them for the time they are not working.

It is a little about growing up, I wish the government would get out of its baby crib and stop crying.

Edited January 7, 2010 by ZenOps

msdogfood · January 7, 2010

Yes, it's impossible now for Tories and their supporters to declare it all "partisan polls".

This is poll 2 today first was ekes even when they did it it did not look good for pmo!

g_bambino · January 7, 2010

Well the first enacted act the Canadian parliament in Canada (not the British in Westminster) was in 1952, a change in the number of seats in the House of commons and gave the Yukon one representative. Up until that point, every change to the "Constitution" was done by the British under British Law.

Good grief. Where does one even start? The Canadian parliament has been enacting legislation since it was formed in 1867; not all acts of parliament are constitutional in nature. The British North America Act was the only Canadian law that remained under control of the British parliament following the Statute of Westminster in 1931, though it could only be amended at the request of Canada; the Canadian parliament passed and amended other constitutional legislation since that date; the Succession to the Throne Act 1937, for instance. The patriation of the constitution was really only the elimination of the UK legislature's last ability to amend the BNA Act. It would be an absolute lunatic who believed that prior to 1975 the Canadian parliament and government were useless organs sitting around doing nothing while the country was governed from Westminster.

[c/e]

Edited January 7, 2010 by g_bambino

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

Good grief. Where does one even start? The Canadian parliament has been enacting legislation since it was formed in 1867; not all acts of parliament are constitutional in nature. The British North America Act was the only Canadian law that remained under control of the British parliament following the Statute of Westminster in 1931, though it could only be amended at the request of Canada; the Canadian parliament passed and amended other constitutional legislation since that date; the Succession to the Throne Act 1937, for instance. The patriation of the constitution was really only the elimination of the UK legislature's last ability to amend the BNA Act. It would be an absolute lunatic who believed the Canadian parliament and government were useless organs sitting around doing nothing while the country was governed from Westminster.

[c/e]

The whole point of the creation of the Dominions was to allow the more prosperous and stable British colonies greater self-government. And, as you say, most acts, the vast majority in fact, are not Constitutional in nature, so even prior to the Statute of Westminster (which would be a much more reasonable date to declare we had become fully independent that 1982), the Canadian Parliament had legislative power.

ZenOps · January 7, 2010

The whole point of the creation of the Dominions was to allow the more prosperous and stable British colonies greater self-government. And, as you say, most acts, the vast majority in fact, are not Constitutional in nature, so even prior to the Statute of Westminster (which would be a much more reasonable date to declare we had become fully independent that 1982), the Canadian Parliament had legislative power.

Yes. Exactly.

Prorogueing is sometimes referred to as a "failed local government", which it is. It weakens Canada overall as a sovereign and a democratic nation. If thats Harpers intention... well... But I personally think (and many others think) its just to save his own ass so that they don't vote him out in a no confidence vote.

Its a sad day when you can't democratically remove your leader. All hail Kim Jong Harper, our glorious Prime Minister Dunsel.

Edited January 7, 2010 by ZenOps

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

Yes. Exactly.

Prorogueing is sometimes referred to as a "failed local government", which it is. It weakens Canada overall as a sovereign and a democratic nation. If thats Harpers intention... well... But I personally think (and many others think) its just to save his own ass so that they don't vote him out in a no confidence vote.

Its a sad day when you can't democratically remove your leader. All hail Kim Jong Harper, our glorious Prime Minister Dunsel.

I'm thinking of calling Charles I, myself. That seems to be the last time in our system's storied history that a leader had that much contempt for Parliament.

ZenOps · January 7, 2010

Hehe.

Charles is going to be interesting all its own. Proroguing to Queen Elizabeth II - is somehow nobler in my book. I don't even see Charles as coinworthy - nevermind a prime minister running to Charles to save his job.

To be honest - I think QEII has done a great service to the commonwealth.

g_bambino · January 7, 2010

Charles is going to be interesting all its own. I don't even see Charles as coinworthy - nevermind a prime minister running to Charles to save his job.

Make no mistake, the present Charles, Prince of Wales, will be King of Canada (and will be a good one, IMHO); but, TB was talking about Charles I, i.e. the first King Charles, who reigned over England from 1625 to 1649.

Shady · January 7, 2010

It's an instrument provided for by the constitution of Canada and our Parliamentary system of DEMOCRACY. You people may not like it, but it's not undemocratic. It's been used in the past, and will be used in the future.

If you're complaining that Harper has used it too much. Then fine. That's a reasonable argument. But to argue that it's somehow undemocratic is frankly, retarded. It's the same type of complaint heard a lot from members of the American congress regarding the filibuster. Lately, over the past several years, it's been used in ways in which had never been used before. But it's still part of the American form of democracy, just as the prorogue process is part of ours.

All this over the top hyperbole about our freedom is gone is nonsense. You all sound like a bunch of whiney brats, who have no idea what you're talking about. All emotion, very little logic and reason.

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

It's an instrument provided for by the constitution of Canada and our Parliamentary system of DEMOCRACY. You people may not like it, but it's not undemocratic. It's been used in the past, and will be used in the future.

If you're complaining that Harper has used it too much. Then fine. That's a reasonable argument. But to argue that it's somehow undemocratic is frankly, retarded. It's the same type of complaint heard a lot from members of the American congress regarding the filibuster. Lately, over the past several years, it's been used in ways in which had never been used before. But it's still part of the American form of democracy, just as the prorogue process is part of ours.

All this over the top hyperbole about our freedom is gone is nonsense. You all sound like a bunch of whiney brats, who have no idea what you're talking about. All emotion, very little logic and reason.

That might apply to the 2009 prorogation. The 2008 prorogation is a considerably different matter, and while the GG made the best call (following the advice of the PM), it was nothing more than a naked attempt to evade the will of Parliament. At the end of the day, so is this. Parliament, whether you agree with the Opposition or not, has the power and the right to demand any and all documents from Ministers, and shutting down Parliament was a means to evade that right of Parliament.

It is a pathetic defense to claim "they're allowed to do it", and was the kind of defense that the Cavaliers used to defend Charles I acts, which were, technically, also constitutional. Prorogation has only traditionally been used at the end of a legislative cycle, not as a way to interrupt that cycle when it gets hot. That something is technically legal does not make it right. The Prime Minister may be the head of government, but he is not the Parliament entire, and it is Parliament that is supreme, not the Prime Minister.

wyly · January 7, 2010

See facebook!

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament

telling an MP is a waste of time, we already know the opposition MPs don't like it...and conservative MPs don't care because they're scared shitless of being caught in a coverup and lying, for them prorogation is the lesser of two evils...

Alta4ever · January 7, 2010

telling an MP is a waste of time, we already know the opposition MPs don't like it...and conservative MPs don't care because they're scared shitless of being caught in a coverup and lying, for them prorogation is the lesser of two evils...

So when is Ignatieff and Layton going to come back from vacation to work? Harper's in His office.

ToadBrother · January 7, 2010

So when is Ignatieff and Layton going to come back from vacation to work? Harper's in His office.

Harper is not Parliament, though it appears that some, you included, have got a little confused. Parliament is supreme, not Harper.

Shady · January 7, 2010

See facebook!

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament

So what. There's almost 600,000 members of the 'If 1,000,000 People Join I'll Legally Change My Name To Mclovin' group.

Facebook

You can get thousands of people to sign up for anything on Facebook. In fact, usually the more stupid the topic, the more members you attract!!!!!!! <--- ended my post with many exclamation marks just like msdogfood does!!! :lol:

Let's remember, this whole prorogue issue came up because of the politicization by the opposition of a terrorist being hit in the head with shoe a couple of times. So please, save us all of your pseudo-rightous indignation. :angry:

nicky10013 · January 7, 2010

So when is Ignatieff and Layton going to come back from vacation to work? Harper's in His office.

January 25th. When he should be going back to work. Unlike Harper.

Shady · January 7, 2010

And another thing. Most MP's do their work in committee or in their riding, not in chamber. So this is again, much-ado-about-nothing. Just another case of Harper Derangement Syndrome.

nicky10013 · January 7, 2010

So what. There's almost 600,000 members of the 'If 1,000,000 People Join I'll Legally Change My Name To Mclovin' group.

Facebook

You can get thousands of people to sign up for anything on Facebook. In fact, usually the more stupid the topic, the more members you attract!!!!!!! <--- ended my post with many exclamation marks just like msdogfood does!!!

Let's remember, this whole prorogue issue came up because of the politicization by the opposition of a terrorist being hit in the head with shoe a couple of times. So please, save us all of your pseudo-rightous indignation. :angry:

Who the hell are you to tell Canadians what they should care about? This is the entire problem. How arrogant. Something tells me you were praising the grass roots protests and democracy on facebook last year when 127,000 joined the anti-coalition group on facebook.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. When a Liberal PM pulls this stunt, and they will, I'll be here with a recorder to the mouths of the Conservative base, who, by all accounts should agree with the move.

capricorn · January 7, 2010

You can get thousands of people to sign up for anything on Facebook.

Sometimes it's a family affair. Moms, dads and kids banding together for The Cause. Sometimes, family cohesion rises above The Cause.

Shady · January 8, 2010

Who the hell are you to tell Canadians what they should care about? This is the entire problem. How arrogant.

Exactly. So don't go around telling Canadians they should care about this if they don't. It works both ways. And some lame-ass facebook group doesn't mean a damn thing.

Something tells me you were praising the grass roots protests and democracy on facebook last year when 127,000 joined the anti-coalition group on facebook.

Nope. Didn't join any group. Didn't know such group even existed.

Oleg Bach · January 8, 2010

If you or I believe in the democratic dream then don't depend on politicans to support that dream. It is people like you and I that keep the dream alive. Do not depend on government - you are the government...suggest to those in position of power on what to do..they simply might be at a loss on how to proceed. Be constructive and help them out.