More Election Gag Laws Upheld

This hasn't received much coverage (probably on account of last week's shenanigans in Parliament).

On Friday, the BC Court of Appeal released a judgment upholding a publication ban in the Canada Elections Act which prohibits individuals from publishing election results from the Eastern Canada before the polls close in the West, ruling that:

"...When the deleterious effect of a short moratorium on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is balanced against the salutary effects of preserving an information balance among voters across the country and promoting the perception of electoral fairness, it appears to me that the salutary effects have more weight..."

Ironically, the State believes that an elector's informed voting decision is one where his access to information is restricted, rather than facilitated.

Bloc-Harper.com...

...The product of legitimate grassroots grievance or of a has-been, discredited ex-Conservative cabinet minister?

If you guessed option (B), you are correct.

Bloc-Harper.com, a site decrying that the Bloc Quebecois and the Conservatives happen to be the only two parties in parliament willing to stand against the government's corruption (ostensibly because this means 'getting into bed with separatists') was brought to our attention today.

The site expresses abhorrence at Liberal corruption:

"True, the Liberal government disgraced itself, not only by allowing an unprecedented level of corruption, but - equally seriously - by giving Québec separatists the greatest gift they could receive: the perception that federalists will use illegal and underhanded tactics to influence Québecers.

...but prefers this criminal regime to the Opposition:

"But as Canadians turn away from the Liberals, there is an equally grave threat to the future of our country: Stephen Harper and his radical view of Canadian federalism.

Navigating through the incoherent ranting on the site, one might find a salient criticism of the *optics* of the Bloc-Tory alliance. But check out the source of the site (via Scotia):

bloc-harper.com Detailed Domain Data:

Register Your Domain Name at RegisterSite.com Today!

The Royal Commonwealth Society of Toronto Foundation
730 Davis Drive, 2nd Floor
Newmarket, ON L3Y 2R4
CA

Domain name: BLOC-HARPER.COM

Administrative Contact:
Stevens, Sinclair smstevens@epla.net
730 Davis Drive, 2nd Floor
Newmarket, ON L3Y 2R4
CA
+1.9058531973 Fax: +1.9058535145

Technical Contact:
Stevens, Sinclair smstevens@epla.net
730 Davis Drive, 2nd Floor
Newmarket, ON L3Y 2R4
CA
+1.9058531973 Fax: +1.9058535145

Sinclair Stevens! The same ex-cabinet minister who was fired from the Mulroney cabinet over conflict-of-interest allegations, which in turn helped create the perception that corruption was endemic in the Mulroney administration. The same Sinc Stevens who sued Peter MacKay after the merger of the federal Tories and the Canadian Alliance in 2003.

Couldn't Harper opponents find a more credible individual to promote this initiative instead of someone whose last twenty years have been spent fighting corruption allegations and launching petty, vindictive lawsuits against political leaders?

Stronach Crosses Floor: Can't MacKay Control His Girlfriend?

In one of the most classless parliamentary displays in years--designed of course to inflict maximum damage on the Official Opposition--Newmarket-Aurora MP Belinda Stronach has crossed the floor to join the Liberal Party as Human Resources Minister.

This begs the question, one I asked in the context of Scott Brison crossing after the merger of the two conservative parties: why couldn't you wait mere months to become a Tory cabinet minister, leaving your leadership ambitions and integrity intact?

This shameless display also changes the dynamics for Thursday's budget (the umpteenth non-confidence vote in a week): the Liberals now require the votes of only two independent MPs and the Speaker of the House, while the Opposition must have the votes of two independents to win the vote and force and election.

MORE LATER

PLVQ Endorses Liberals*

For their economic stewardship.

For their tax cuts.

For their integrity in government.

For their elimination of the deficit.

For forcing their radical opposition to move to the centre in order to stave off electoral oblivion.

For all these reasons, PLVQ has decided to endorse the Liberals in the forthcoming election*.







*The Gordon Campbell-led BC LIBERALS, that is, at tomorrow's ballot box.

The party's agenda to rehabilitate the economic health of that province during their four-year mandate--despite opposition from the usual suspects like university-based socialists and union leaders--through tax and spending cuts, deficit-slashing, and reduction in the size of government, is an agenda that would have made Mike Harris proud.

While they have backtracked or stalled greater competition for state-dominated monopolies such as BC Liquor, disavowed privatisation entirely in the case of state-run auto insurer ICBC, and implemented a populist democratic reform process that could have a deleterious effect on constituent representation and BC's Westminister democracy, these blemishes can be overlooked (especially given the only other competititive party is the NDP).

Over the next four years, the Liberals should refrain from succumbing to Ralph Klein syndrome--that horrible malady where a government loses all fiscal discipline when its province's books return to order. Gordon Campbell should continue with tax cuts and other measures to ensure that BC remains competitive while permanently reducing the size of government.

Whether this happens or not, the fact that the *BC NDP* have discovered the merits of fiscal prudence is enough to illustrate the positive impact that the Liberal government has had on the politics and economy of British Columbia since 2001.

Stephen Harper, Ramping up the Rhetoric

The Gazette, reporting on Harper's remarks at a candidate training session this past weekend:

Conservative leader Stephen Harper warned anglophones that they would wreck the country if they remained loyal to the federal Liberals.

Oh, the state of political discourse in this country.

On Unrest in Uzbekistan: Islamist Dissidents or Seekers of Liberty?

It seems that the sweep of generally peaceful revolutions occurring in former Soviet republics won't be soon replicated in repressive Uzbekistan--a U.S. anti-terror ally--with reports that government troops have killed and wounded scores of (some say mainly unarmed) demonstrators. This is the republic ruled by iron-fisted former communist Islam Karimov, whose attempts to stifle opposition include intolerance of freedom of religion and expression and torture techniques like genital mutilation and the boiling of suspects.

The unrest started late last week, when demonstrators freed jailed small businessmen accused of supporting a banned Islamic religious sect. While imprisoning individuals as account of their religious affiliation is reprehensible inter se, it is unclear that these individuals were involved in any activity requiring sanction. According to one of the jailed individuals, Abduvosid Egomov, their issue has not been the creation of a theocracy by violence but the advancement of liberty:

“We are not going to overthrow the government. We demand economic freedom,” Mr. Egomov told AP. “If the army is going to storm, if they're going to shoot, we are ready to die instead of living as we are living now. The Uzbek people have been reduced to living like dirt.”

While the demonstrators can't entirely claim a moral high-ground (some were lobbing molotov cocktails during the course of their weekend's festivities) the growing exodus of individuals to recently liberated Kyrgyzstan--normally a practice forbidden by authorities--may be a testament to the sincerity of this movement and the underlying thirst for liberty fomenting among regular Uzbeks.

One unfortunate aspect of the war on terror--the goals of which remain both laudable and necessary--is America's calculative realpolitik which foregoes significant criticism of the illiberal elements of supportive regimes, giving a freer hand to dictators like Karimov who wish to extend and perpetuate their own power. It also allows these dictators to use the straw-man of "Islamic extremism" to excuse the arbitary detention and repression of those who made the unfortunate decision to advocate greater liberty while simultaneously adhering to the teaching of some ancient named Mohammed.

Illegitimate Government in Canada: Day II

Here's a great post about last evening's non-non-confidence debacle, in the context of Canadian Parliamentary tradition, courtesy of Prof. Andrew Heard of Simon Fraser University (via Farquhar).

This gem justifying the illegitimate government's antics comes from shameless Liberal youth hack and spinmeister Jason Cherniak, whose site is better known as a digest of recycled Martinite speaking notes than a source of objectively insightful commentary. Some highlights (in italics):

"It was not technically a vote of non-confidence and the government has a right to ignore it, but they shouldn't because, clearly, the House wants an election."

No, Jason, what the motion clearly indicated was that the majority of the members of the House demanded the resignation of the government, which was both the express and implied intent of yesterday's motion.

The original confidence motion was scheduled for May 18 and if the Tories were playing fair they would not have tried to hold a vote while Cadman was unable to attend due to CHEMOTHERAPY! Talk about disgusting political tricks.

Since when does the Prime Minister get to decide when the House can express its confidence or lack thereof in the government? When Mike Pearson lost a supply vote on account of absent members in the late 1960s, he immediately called for and won a confidence motion. Why won't the Prime Minister commit to calling one given last night's expression of parliamentary intent?

...At this point in time, Martin's government has not lost one important legislative vote. Not one!

Yeah, but what important piece of legislation has been passed since the paralysis of parliament? Further, it's irrelevant that, oh, months ago the Liberals had the confidence of the House (ie. through the passing of the Speech from the Throne). Confidence motions arise because Parliament no longer has confidence in the government--they don't arise merely as an expression of what was always the case.

...The question is not whether the House wants an election - the question is whether the PM is able to get a legislative agenda through the House.

Then why has the government been FILIBUSTERING its own budget? They had the ability to ram the budget through the House right after the Grit-NDP New Deal but decided not to. Perhaps this is because they can't guarantee that they can pass the budget, or, more appropriately, don't have the confidence of the House?

...The goal of government is to improve the lives of Canadians. The government has a duty to get through as much positive legislation as possible. There is still the marijuana and equal marriage legislation, for example. Both of those would pass if introduced tomorrow. Does the government not have a duty to try to get those bills passed before an election happens?

Using that logic, any government in the same situation as the present one can simply point to the order paper and say--"Hey, Parliament! You can't lose faith or confidence in us! We have important work to do!" That same flippant attitude is prevalent in such bastions of democracy as Zimbabwe ("Opposition! You can't win this election! We still haven't completed our land reform/theft programme!") or Iran ("we simply cannot have these reform-minded candidates running for Parliament--they'll prevent us from implementing our theocratic agenda!")

Until Harper can prove that governing is impossible for the government, he has no real case to claim that there is no confidence.

Better put, maybe it's time for the Prime Minister to regenerate the gonads he used to possess in the mid-1990s and call a motion of confidence if he really believes in the importance of his agenda and wants to see it fulfilled.

Martin apologists like the PMO and Cherniak may want to ignore 150 years of parliamentary convention and sacrifice it on the altar of desperate political expedience. But the lame attempt at spinning away a clear expression of the Commons' lack of confidence in the administration has the effect of discrediting the present government far more than the sum of all of the corruption allegations bleeding from the witness stand in Judge Gomery's courtroom.

While I'm not particularly saddened at that, this discrediting of the Martin government has come at the expense of destroying what little faith Canadians have in their political institutions, and has resulted in the death of responsible government. That, friends, is what is truly lamentable about this debacle. Perhaps that, and the spectacle of Paul Martin Sr. rolling over in his grave.

Teaching the Government a Lesson about Parliamentary Democracy

Yesterday, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe indicated that, in the event that the Liberals were to ignore an affirmative non-confidence vote--as they did this evening--it "would be the duty of the Governor-General to call Paul Martin and to tell him a few things about democracy."

While I'm distressed that the Governor-General hasn't interceded and unilaterally dissolved Parliament (an action more democratic than the perpetuation of the present farce of a government governing-without-the-House's-confidence- because-the-House's-confidence-doesn't-matter), perhaps the words of one of Mr. Martin's predecessors could deliver the consitutional and parliamentary education that the present Prime Minister is so sorely lacking:

"...He wants to know by what right this Government is in office. By the sane right that every government is in office in Canada to-day or has ever been in office in this country -- by the right of the confidence of a majority of the Parliament elected by a majority of the people...

...The fact is both the spirit and the letter of the constitution of this country may be defined thus: The term is five years; the usual practice is four years; the Government is entitled to hold office during that term, provided it maintains the confidence of the representatives of the people as reflected in the parliament elected...

...Consequently, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances that obtain now; under the conditions of public policy and the discussion of public principle that to-day obtain by reason of the statements and speeches of public men, the clear duty of this Government, for the present at all events, is to carry on and to carry out its policy so long as a majority of the members of this House repose confidence in the Administration...

-- The Right Honourable Prime Minister Arthur Meighen, Speech to the House of Commons, 15 February 1921, in response to a proposed confidence motion by Opposition Leader W.L. Mackenzie King