? Eatliz: Hey | Main | The Bikini Bandits ?

January 12, 2009

The long game, they said

(Just reproducing a comment at Jay Currie's so technically not updating...)

This exchange of comments is a salient reminder of just how many “conservatives” there are who remain clearly ignorant of Section 13.1, don’t care about/actively support statist intervention in freedom of speech, care more about power than principle or are simple-minded partisans who will check the box for Harper or anyone else provided he is wearing the right colour hat (“na na-na na-na na-na leader!”).

The best advertisement, in other words, for why Harper thinks he can do whatever he wants to win a few seats in Quebec and give us Mulroney redux, another five years of Canadian government doing exactly what it would have done under, say, Bob Rae and a few jobs for party hacks who have nothing to say for themselves and consequently nothing to lose by the abolition of our most ancient rights.

It is hilarious to me that anyone who thinks supporting a leader who ignores his own party’s convention platform time and again is going to magically transform that leader into a man who will enact conservative principles once he has a majority. And, yes, despite what these partisans cannot manage to squeeze between their ears, Ignatieff is a big part of what makes Plan B possible. The man supports the war, suggested tax cuts in the face of our economic slow down (the correct action, in other words) and – judging by a doorstep conversation with Kathy Shaidle – may even be a better man to repeal 13.1 than anyone else on offer. Do we trust Ignatieff? No. But we know we cannot trust Harper and he is the man with whom we have leverage.

Just wait for a majority, we have been told time and time again. If Harper had done anything in his tenure a Liberal would not have done the folks saying making this stalest of arguments might yet have a point. They don’t. They are the reason Harper thinks he can get away with doing nothing and, by so doing, allow the persecution of the innocent. They are the problem.

Stick it to the man: Plan B and the voodoo that you do so well.

Also: Raphael Alexander at Unambiguously Ambidextrous sums it up nicely. RTWT.

The point of politics is not to vote for the “least” of all perils, but to encourage grassroots reform where a political party no longer represents one’s interests. That is exactly what motivates proponents of eliminating the HRC, and by coincidence disaffected Conservative voters who see fiscally unconservative policies in the government action plan.

More: I like the sound of this Raphael Alexander fellow. Responding to some partisan hack at Blue Like You (I have made a minor editorial revision, see the comments to see if I have fairly represented his views).

I’m not interested in “helping” a Conservative party that isn’t conservative. I don’t know how much more clear I can make that. So according to you and Brucie, wanting a liberal party that pretends to be Conservative makes me a Liberal?

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Having said that, I cannot agree with Alexander's dismissal of what Ezra Levant can and cannot write. This freedom is more important than enacting conservative principles in a budget. And I do not think of myself as "far right" for thinking this way. Better to describe freedom of speech advocates as far centre.

Also, and because some people have clearly missed the point, Plan-B is not intended to offer an alternative conservative party, not even intended to elect a single candidate on a single issue. It is intended to deny Stephen Harper's party a majority government and in so doing give him a kick in the pants. That's it. Though given the Liberal's tactical choice in Michael Ignatieff and Harper's refusal to do anything a Liberal government would not have done, Harper is doing a good job of denying himself a majority all on his own.

I do not care if we have a Conservative majority government. I do not care if we have Prime Minister Michael Ignatieff. I care about freedom of speech and I believe in crushing opponents of freedom of speech by whatever means necessary. If that means nuking Mecca and seeding the ground with radioactive salt then so be it. Pushing Stephen Harper out of the way isn't even a fly on the windscreen in comparison.

To the point: Frank Hilliard comments at Mesopotamia West.

Remember, the bureaucrats are only a problem because they're tying our hands in the fight with the real enemy; the one that would take all our liberties and replace them with Sharia Law.

So, yes, in a minority situation I expect a Conservative government to disband the CHRC and fire all its employees.

I expect it to do so in the name of Canadian liberties and I expect the Country to support this action.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at January 12, 2009 06:03 AM


Just curious as to how this would in any way help get rid of the offending legislation. If Harper wins a majority, nothing will change. If Harper stays a minority, nothing will change. If the Liberals win a minority, nothing will change. If the Liberals win a majority, nothing will change. In short, no existing party with a credible chance of forming government has any intention of, or even inclination towards, removing section 13. Not seeing the upside here. Point?

Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 12, 2009 12:59 PM

The point is to twist Harper's arm. I do not believe anything short of threatening his plans will force him to do the right thing.

Also, at this point I believe there is a better chance Ignatieff will address the problem than Harper and - all things being equal re the war - no obvious disadvantage to getting rid of Conservatives in name only.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 12, 2009 04:31 PM

Thank you, I appreciate your comments.

Perhaps I was a bit glib in my comment about Ezra. I do actually care about freedom of speech, quite a bit. Nothing would please me more than to hear the entire HRC was shut down, not just Section 13. But I suppose it's a little lower on my priority list than, say, the massive mind-blowing deficit being proposed by the government who just finished a campaign than told us Stephane Dion would run a deficit.

Posted by: Raphael Alexander [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 12, 2009 08:08 PM

I believe you are quite right to be concerned about the budget. It is wrong in itself, obviously, and another sign of the Mulroneyfication of this government. Partisan Conservatives who imagine a Harper majority will magically transform into something else are ignoring what it has shown itself to be time and time again.

We are better off with Ignatieff.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 13, 2009 07:30 AM

Very nice article. thanks...

Posted by: oyun [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2009 10:59 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)

(This comment system is not reliable. Half the time it won't let me comment on my own blog. Please don't take it personally if it does not work for you. Alternative suggestions would be welcome but best remember I am technologically incompetent. Thanks for your patience.)

Remember me?