When discussing Sean Avery - a man who rarely, if ever, shirks an opportunity to behave boorishly despite placing himself, as an NHL hockey player, in a role model position for thousands of young athletes - you'll quickly realize I have about as much respect for the man as that stubborn pink stuff I have to scrub off my shower every week.
Yesterday, in apologizing for his latest Avery-ism and thus at least acknowledging his undeservedly poor behaviour, he actually placed himself in a higher ethical position than the zoo that has become Canadian parliament (one could argue this was the case even before the apology, as at least his misbehaviour won't directly affect the lives of millions of Canadians, but I digress).
With this whole coalition buzz going on, I see a lot of people taking sides, and although I've been reading both sides of the argument an awful lot (maybe too much, with exams around the corner!), I find myself too disgusted by both groups to set up camp anywhere.
At first I was surprised by how soon after the election this all came about. Mere weeks after Harper was elected, and with the budget not even released yet (the proposed date - January 27th - is more than a reasonable amount of time), I was already being told by pro-Coalitionists that Harper has failed to secure the needs of a country in economic crisis. Already? Apparently, I thought, something more substantial than his preliminary statements have been released, such that people can make this lofty judgment. Not so... all articles were simply more of the same: Harper hasn't yet shown that he'll stimulate the economy sufficiently (despite their yet unreleased budget plan); blatant partisan bullying in the form of removal of public finances for political parties, hurting the Conservatives the least (which Harper has backed down on), and claims that it is constitutionally within the rights of the Opposition to coalesce (as if Harper denies this; his grievances lie elsewhere). Nonetheless, I'm told, jumping the gun and flinging the country into political turmoil is still justified.
But wait, I told myself, I'm no Conservative. Although I can think of worse Prime Ministers in recent memory, Harper has done little to garner my support. Why should a young, socially progressive academic like myself toady up to someone who has done so little of the same for me? I'm as angered as anyone by his political grand-standing as of late; I also happen to think those public finances better ensure a healthy, fair, democratic battleground for campaigning parties. This anger towards Harper isn't new, though.
He elected an chiropractor and acupuncturist - both antiscientific quackery at its best - as our Minister of Science and Technology, for Chrissakes. If there's one other thing, aside from science, that I support it's music; nothing gladdens me more to see talented and creative young musicians doing what they love for a living... well, except maybe seeing their governments providing the necessary initial stepping stones for this to happen. I don't think its a coincidence the happiest and mentally healthiest countries overseas also have strong support for burgeoning young local artists, but its clear from his treatment of arts funding in Canada that Harper doesn't see it. Women continue to experience wage inequality in the Canadian workplace, and Harper (among others) can certainly take a bow for this. Under Harper, the right to appeal pay equity cases to the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been slashed, with the Conservatives decreeing that its a matter for bargaining in the federal public sector. This has effectively stripped it of its status as part of a right to protection from discrimination. I could go on and on.
So when I say I don't support the coalition, it's not because I'm a fan of Harper. First off, I don't support it because the Opposition has done nothing to convince me this is anything but a power grab: appeals from level-headed Liberals like Gordon Campbell to at least wait for the budget have gone unheeded, claims that he has no plan to help the crisis situation are pure hogwash (among other things, he's stated he'll double spending on infrastructure, assist seniors on RRIF as well as securing pensions, putting $1B into jobs retraining with the baby boomers on the way out, as well as aid for the auto industry, aerospace and forestry...). Harper's backing down on the budget removal did nothing to slow their momentum. If they were sincere, it should have. Their inability to wait for the budget only further confirms this.
So would the coalition do any better? When asked, Dion blusters not once but three times, claiming he doesn't understand the question despite it being clearly-worded and simple in concept. Eventually he gives up and ends the interview. Let's assume they've begun planning since the video however: could a combination of three parties, with politically different and often conflicting ideologies, agree on a long-term budget plan any sooner than the Conservatives have proposed? Of course not, the notion is ridiculous.
But this represents the desires of the majority of Canadians, doesn't it? Look at the polls - the Conservatives only garnered 37% of the vote, while the coalition's votes total 62%. The thing is, nobody was voting for a coalition. Voting for a coalition is like putting money on a pair of three-legged racers in Olympic sprint - it will be a struggle, at best, for a group of politically dissonant parties to run the country effectively, and people know this. You want to play the numbers game? Sure - 74% of Canadians voted against Dion, 82% against Layton and 90% against Duceppe, but these are the people who may be running the country soon. Using numbers is completely disingenuous.
I look south of the border and I see Obama's honest attempts to unite a divided country and find a common goal to an over-arching crisis. Between Harper's partisan bullying and the Opposition's shark-like blood frenzy, I see nothing of the same north of the border. There is NOTHING stopping the two sides from ending this behaviour: apologizing, extending an olive branch and finding some common ground for the sake of Canada. The continued vitriol, however, shows that both sides are more concerned with saving face, than admitting any wrong-doing. What a day where Canadian politicians have something to learn from an immature, Piltdownian hockey player.
Yesterday, in apologizing for his latest Avery-ism and thus at least acknowledging his undeservedly poor behaviour, he actually placed himself in a higher ethical position than the zoo that has become Canadian parliament (one could argue this was the case even before the apology, as at least his misbehaviour won't directly affect the lives of millions of Canadians, but I digress).
With this whole coalition buzz going on, I see a lot of people taking sides, and although I've been reading both sides of the argument an awful lot (maybe too much, with exams around the corner!), I find myself too disgusted by both groups to set up camp anywhere.
At first I was surprised by how soon after the election this all came about. Mere weeks after Harper was elected, and with the budget not even released yet (the proposed date - January 27th - is more than a reasonable amount of time), I was already being told by pro-Coalitionists that Harper has failed to secure the needs of a country in economic crisis. Already? Apparently, I thought, something more substantial than his preliminary statements have been released, such that people can make this lofty judgment. Not so... all articles were simply more of the same: Harper hasn't yet shown that he'll stimulate the economy sufficiently (despite their yet unreleased budget plan); blatant partisan bullying in the form of removal of public finances for political parties, hurting the Conservatives the least (which Harper has backed down on), and claims that it is constitutionally within the rights of the Opposition to coalesce (as if Harper denies this; his grievances lie elsewhere). Nonetheless, I'm told, jumping the gun and flinging the country into political turmoil is still justified.
But wait, I told myself, I'm no Conservative. Although I can think of worse Prime Ministers in recent memory, Harper has done little to garner my support. Why should a young, socially progressive academic like myself toady up to someone who has done so little of the same for me? I'm as angered as anyone by his political grand-standing as of late; I also happen to think those public finances better ensure a healthy, fair, democratic battleground for campaigning parties. This anger towards Harper isn't new, though.
He elected an chiropractor and acupuncturist - both antiscientific quackery at its best - as our Minister of Science and Technology, for Chrissakes. If there's one other thing, aside from science, that I support it's music; nothing gladdens me more to see talented and creative young musicians doing what they love for a living... well, except maybe seeing their governments providing the necessary initial stepping stones for this to happen. I don't think its a coincidence the happiest and mentally healthiest countries overseas also have strong support for burgeoning young local artists, but its clear from his treatment of arts funding in Canada that Harper doesn't see it. Women continue to experience wage inequality in the Canadian workplace, and Harper (among others) can certainly take a bow for this. Under Harper, the right to appeal pay equity cases to the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been slashed, with the Conservatives decreeing that its a matter for bargaining in the federal public sector. This has effectively stripped it of its status as part of a right to protection from discrimination. I could go on and on.
So when I say I don't support the coalition, it's not because I'm a fan of Harper. First off, I don't support it because the Opposition has done nothing to convince me this is anything but a power grab: appeals from level-headed Liberals like Gordon Campbell to at least wait for the budget have gone unheeded, claims that he has no plan to help the crisis situation are pure hogwash (among other things, he's stated he'll double spending on infrastructure, assist seniors on RRIF as well as securing pensions, putting $1B into jobs retraining with the baby boomers on the way out, as well as aid for the auto industry, aerospace and forestry...). Harper's backing down on the budget removal did nothing to slow their momentum. If they were sincere, it should have. Their inability to wait for the budget only further confirms this.
So would the coalition do any better? When asked, Dion blusters not once but three times, claiming he doesn't understand the question despite it being clearly-worded and simple in concept. Eventually he gives up and ends the interview. Let's assume they've begun planning since the video however: could a combination of three parties, with politically different and often conflicting ideologies, agree on a long-term budget plan any sooner than the Conservatives have proposed? Of course not, the notion is ridiculous.
But this represents the desires of the majority of Canadians, doesn't it? Look at the polls - the Conservatives only garnered 37% of the vote, while the coalition's votes total 62%. The thing is, nobody was voting for a coalition. Voting for a coalition is like putting money on a pair of three-legged racers in Olympic sprint - it will be a struggle, at best, for a group of politically dissonant parties to run the country effectively, and people know this. You want to play the numbers game? Sure - 74% of Canadians voted against Dion, 82% against Layton and 90% against Duceppe, but these are the people who may be running the country soon. Using numbers is completely disingenuous.
I look south of the border and I see Obama's honest attempts to unite a divided country and find a common goal to an over-arching crisis. Between Harper's partisan bullying and the Opposition's shark-like blood frenzy, I see nothing of the same north of the border. There is NOTHING stopping the two sides from ending this behaviour: apologizing, extending an olive branch and finding some common ground for the sake of Canada. The continued vitriol, however, shows that both sides are more concerned with saving face, than admitting any wrong-doing. What a day where Canadian politicians have something to learn from an immature, Piltdownian hockey player.
No comments:
Post a Comment