- Harper & the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship

Excerpt Posted 2/18/2010 10:56:47 AM - The Globe and Mail
Ignatieff uses the pause , Globe and Mail, 17 Feb.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/ignatieff-uses-the-pause/article1470659/ Tab 9

Harper at all times has chosen what furthers his own and the Con's agenda, Canada be damned. Whether it is good for Canada is not a consideration.

There are many, many examples of this but one is Harper's declaring everything as non-confidence votes to force the Opposition parties to accept his policies, there is no consideration by Harper of whether it is for the good of all Canadians and no consideration by Harper for the 2/3 rds Canadians that voted against him.

Harper and the Con's being extreme right wing ideologues makes this insidious. Canada is gradually, bit-by-bit, being morphed into a right wing extremist country. Further is that it is coming to light that Harper also bases his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state (e.g. Iran) despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized. The irony is that despite the religious nature, Harper is being very dishonest about it.

The problem is that Harper and the Con's base everything on their ideology. It is right wing and extreme compared to the Canadian tradition of being an open, tolerant, multicultural, diverse, secular, Rule of Law based, Charter enshrined rights, moderate Democratic society. Rather, Harper and the Con's fit the profile of a third world dictatorship.

Given the complexity of any developed, commerce based, diverse modern society, like Canada, making policies decisions based on ideology can never be in the best interest of Canadians and will always favour one group and marginalize another group, not because it is necessary or in the best interest of all Canadians as a whole, but because they subscribe, or don't subscribe, to the ideology. The more extreme the ideology the smaller the group that are favoured and the larger the group that are marginalized. Currently, it would appear that it is approx 1/3 favoured and 2/3 marginalized, with regional variations.

Polices and decisions ought to be based on what is best for Canadians as a nation, based not on whether it is in line with some ideology, but on a rational basis, given the current context, both domestically and internationally. What is rationally based can debated in Parliament, discussed in they media, including recently developed, technology based media. But, it is logical that Canadians would request input from those who are outstanding in the particular matter at issue.

For example, Harper reduced the GST by two points based on ideology and crass grab at power by appealing to voters on an emotional bases. He did this without considering the opinions of Economists. Ian Brodie, Harper's adviser at the time, has come out and admitted that Harper implemented the GST reduction contrary to good economic advise. Harper is now ignoring the opinions of the Ed Clark and the Canadian Council of (150) Chief Executives,". . . almost every single person said raise my taxes. Get this deficit done" (referring to increasing the GST back to what it was) in preparing the budget.

In fact, as everyone knows, Harper and the Con's have attacked Clark on a personal basis for daring to stand up and state his opinion. This is not right (morally, that is).

This could be done very easily and without much fuss by appointing people outstanding in various areas important to Canadian society to the Senate, as opposed to making political appointments. The Senate could then set up standing committees to review and investigate on an ongoing basis, taking into account the circumstances at the time and the best interests of all Canadians as a whole.

This, is completely in line with the intention of the purpose of the Senate of "Sober Second Thought". There is a very good reason that when the Senate was established appointments for life were included - to distance them from political interference of the day. Harper's intentions are to destroy this. One can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

A very good analogy of this proposed reform and one that is extremely successful and well respected is The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC is the exemplification of rationally based decisions. We would be in good stead if we modeled Senate reform in accordance with this institution. One of the biggest advantages of the Supreme Court is that once appointed they can not be dismissed by the Prime Minister or even Parliament. In other words, it is outside the political interference of the Prime Minister.

Harper and his Con's, of course, periodically call for the Supreme Court to be subject to Parliament and given the the Supreme Court is a product of legislation, perhaps they could, if Harper had a majority (that's something to think about).

Again, one can only think that the reason is that considering things rationally and for the good of all Canadians is diametrically opposed to extreme (right wing) ideologically based policies that favour the few.

Iggy would be well advised to take this into consideration when he is deciding "what 21st-century Liberalism stands for" and be very wary of becoming another ideology based Party. On the other hand, at least it wouldn't be so extreme and much more inclusive.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html