Category Archives: Federal

Federal, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

Politicians Lie? What a Shock!

Leave a comment
I'm Shocked!
I'm Shocked!

Why is anyone surprised that politicians would lie, withhold information or release information when it is most favourable to the politicians?

After all that is how the voting public has trained them to behave.

When you punish those of integrity – who tell the truth, want to address important issues, are solution oriented acknowledging that solutions are not going to be neat, tidy or free, are interested in the wellbeing of all Canadians and in bringing change; then have the audacity to insist on talking about these things when Canadians want to hear everything is wonderful and it is easy, simple and inexpensive to fix problems – by refusing to listen or think about what they are saying and refusing to vote for those of integrity because they insist on telling the voting public the truth, is it any wonder that people of integrity cease seeking office?

When you reward those who tell the public what it wants to hear no matter what the reality of the situation is; listen to their fear-mongering tales of boogeyman; accept unquestioningly financial statements and claims that if applied to your personal finances would have you homeless and on the street; accept unquestioningly statements that cannot stand up to event the most elementary logic or reason; insist that problems have easy, neat, tidy and fast answers; claim that everything is wonderful and there is not need for change; pit citizen against citizen for personal and political advantage – voting for them simply because they tell the voting public what it wants to hear, is it any wonder that politicians lie, withhold information or release it when it is to their advantage?

“What is the primary purpose of a political leader? To build a majority. If voters care about parking lots, then talk about parking lots.” Newt Gingrich

When the public votes only for those who tell them what they want to hear and about parking lots, refusing to listen to, consider or vote for those who insist on addressing issues, how can they be surprised that they end up without people of integrity in government and with a legislature populated with those who will lie and tell them whatever they want to hear in order to win?

If citizens want people of integrity in government then they have to convince people of integrity that they are ready to listen, to think about and to engage in discussion of important issues – even if they would rather not hear about issues, about making choices and change.

Then they have to be willing to vote for them.

There is a joke that goes: Stop repeat offenders. Don’t re-elect them.

If citizens want honour and integrity in those in elected office they have to vote for people of honour and integrity.

Understand that if you elect people of honour and integrity they are not going to lie to you and tell you what you want to hear, they are going to tell you what is and what you need to hear about, think about and decide about.

Federal, Media, Municipal

Fairness

Leave a comment

I was driving by Tim Felger’s store and looking at the window damage as the radio DJ was speaking of Marc Emery spending 6 – 8 years in an American jail (or serving his sentence in Canada). Arriving home the second item on the 11PM news was about granting an exception to Canadian law for the ex-KGB agent currently taking sanctuary in a church to avoid arrest and deportation.

All of which left me pondering the state of fairness in the Canadian justice system.

It has been a sad fact of life that those with money can, through their ability to hire high priced legal talent, realistically afford a different brand of justice than the average citizen. By the same token the average citizen can afford a different brand of justice than the poor, the homeless, the addicted or the mentally ill who have no money and are far too often entirely at the mercy of chance as to how they fare within the legal system.

Not a perfectly fair reality, but a reality nonetheless and an issue that, while difficult to remedy, has at least the fairness of being in the public awareness.

I am far more concerned with popularity of the party involved becoming the deciding factor as to how the law is or is not applied. Politics is a popularity contest and one only has to take a honest, objective look at our cities, provinces and country to see how badly popularity can be as a basis to make policy or apply policy on.

Worse, it seems to being played out in the media. Contrast the tone of the current reporting on the ex-KGB officer who has taken refuge within a Vancouver church with the reporting that was done when an illegal immigrant from India took shelter in a Sikh temple. While the circumstances are not exactly the same, the principle is.

Marc Emery is not a friend of Stephen Harper or his Conservative party and is not the type of person or character that any of the opposition parties will stand up on a matter of principle over.

Personally I would gladly kick Mr. Emery’s ass over many of his actions and behaviours. But … as a matter of principle he should not have had to cut a deal and serve prison time because the Canadian government (and most Canadians) don’t like him or what he stands for.

Remember what Mr. Emery was doing in Canada was legal for him to be doing in Canada. The failure of the government from the start to say no, under these circumstances we will not extradite him, has far reaching consequences (just ask other Canadians abandoned in foreign jails to foreign legal systems) as well as fairness issues.

I caught an interview with Salman Rushdie on CBC’s The Hour. What would have happened if Iran (or another Islamic country) had asked for his extradition to face charges for writing the Satanic Verses? What do you think the public’s reaction would be and in light of public and world reaction, what would the Canadian government have done? Refused the extradition request.

Fairness?

I have seen no editorial outrage or public outcry at the damage done to Tim Felger’s front store windows or the shooting out of the truck’s and rear store windows. Considering the extremely close watch the police, the city and outraged citizens keep on Mr. Felger and his establishment and the extent of the damage done and the time it would take, it is troubling that someone had that time and that no suspects have been found.

Over the years Mr. Felger has made himself very unpopular in Abbotsford particularly with city council and the police, but in fairness that should not affect the handling of the criminal damage done to his store.

Fairness requires that whether we like or dislike the people, like or dislike the situation, that like or dislike does not affect the outcome.

In suggesting that the law treat the ex-KGB agent differently ‘because he deserves it’; in tolerating the government not refusing to extradite Mr. Emery ‘because he deserves it’; in tolerating the damage done to Mr. Felger’s store and way he is treated ‘because he deserves it’; we increase the unfairness of the system and decrease our own rights and protections.

Fairness does not just protect the Felger’s of the world. Fairness protects us all and we abandon Fairness ‘because he (they) do not deserve it’ at our own peril.

Federal

Character – or lack thereof.

Leave a comment

As a Canadian it pleased me to hear that the CBC had declined to run Stephen Harper’s desperate and contemptible anti-Michael Ignatieff drivel. It appears at least someone in Canadian broadcast television has at least minimal standards.

Although in the case of the media conglomerates, in light of the ‘save local television’ con they are running, they could hardly refuse even as crass and un-Canadian an advertisement as Harper’s odious personal attack on Michael Ignatieff.

Of course one cannot overlook the matter of self interest in the decision by the media conglomerates to accept and run Harper’s sordid attack ad. It is in the best interest of the media conglomerates to curry favour with Harper and the Conservatives as they want them to impose a tax on Canadian’s cable service then give the tax monies raised to the media conglomerates in order to save them from bankruptcy now and to guarantee future corporate profits without the need to bother to do anything about their bad management practices.

I do acknowledge that I did find the irony inherent in the tag line accusation “in it for himself” rather amusing. It left me wanting to suggest to Mr. Harper that he should not ascribe his personal motivations to anyone other than himself. Just because Mr. Harper continuously demonstrates, through his behaviour, that he is clearly “in it for himself” does not mean anyone else seeking office is “in it for himself” and not motivated by a desire to rescue Canada and Canadians from Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

The most disturbing aspect of the ad, other than its demonstration that Stephen Harper has no understanding of what it means to be Canadian, is what it says about Harper and the Conservatives on issues of policy and governance.

The advertisement highlights Mr. Harper’s desperation and fears that the polls showing the Liberals under Ignatieff leading the Conservatives strongly enough to win the majority in parliament that Canadians denied Mr. Harper.

There was no vision, ideas, priorities or integrity revealed in Mr. Harpers attack on Mr. Ignatieff; just the desperation of Mr. Harper to hang onto power in any manner and at any cost.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. Abraham Lincoln