Thursday, June 11, 2015

How Much Do You Trust The Government?

The Harper and Liberal apologists tell us that Bill C-51 is necessary to keep us safe and protect our freedoms. I simply don't believe or trust them. Do you?



You can read more about these concerns here.

11 comments:

  1. And Justin Trudeau was still trying to defend the Liberals support of this bill just a few days ago in Edmonton(?). Our only hope now is that it looks like it will almost surely fail to withstand a challenge in court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Anon. So far, the Supreme Court has protected citizen rights that the Harper regime has such disdain for.

      Delete
  2. Lorne:

    I do not tend to trust governments in general, but this government I actively distrust at levels I've never felt before, for reasons I have enumerated to the point of exhaustion. I also have no particular love for C51, and I believe much of it is horrific, but I also accept that there are likely some elements that have some merit. Do I believe the benefits outweigh the negatives? Nope, not even close. Do I think the Libs hurt themselves by supporting it even though their support was unnecessary? Yes, it hurt them a lot on their left flank, no question. Do I think it was a bad call politically? I'm still of the opinion it was the less politically damaging course of action given where it was clear the Harper machine planned on taking a Lib no vote, and after the Libs watched their support drop after the Parliament Hill shooting and the focus on security work so well for Harper and against them, it is an understandable position. Do I like it, of course not. Do I think the Libs deserve to be abandoned because of it? Also of course not!

    I've said it many times, the key to defeating the Harper CPC is almost certainly in peeling away the soft right/conservatives and centrists that have sided with Harper, especially as seen in 2011. This decision allowed the Libs to survive being cast as totally out to lunch on security by these people's lights, especially given their opposition to the Iraq/Libya action. I think the Libs took more damage for this choice than they expected, but I will wait and see how it all plays out in the actual election campaign.

    The problem is the security argument is not totally without merit. There is a real threat out there, if nothing like what Harper tries to sell, there are still clearly some issues with our security apparatus (and yes, I include the lack of proper oversight as a big part of that, and I mean true oversight, not review) and therefore it is a serious issue which even with a government as untrustworthy as this one has proven itself to be cannot be reflexively rejected either.

    C51 overall was not truly needed, especially in the more egregious parts, and it is clearly aimed at further consolidating the CPC merging of the powers of government with their party as much as anything else, as well as clearly intended to be used to destroy Trudeau with when he went against it as was expected. Part of what makes this government so truly bad and arguably evil is its unprecedented use of legislation for purely partisan electoral purposes in realms like national security and other traditionally beyond partisan national issues in this country.

    In any event, I am not defending C51, but I will not agree the Libs are total sellouts because they made this choice either. I would have preferred to still live in a political reality where substance still counted more than perception, but since the rise of Harper to the PMO that time died, and in this reality that means occasionally swallowing things I personally dislike intensely.

    I know I am in a minority in the progressive/centrist community for this, but there you go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to hear from you, as always, Scotian. I certainly appreciate your points here, but because the legislation was passed by an ideologically-driven government that seeks to retain power by almost any means, i cannot support it.

      Given the well-documented Harper measures to suppress the voice of science that challenges his undeniable fetish for tarsands bitumen, coupled with his contempt for any environmental concerns that impede the advancement of the corporate agenda, the provisions of Bill C-51 about threats to Canada are sufficiently vague to criminalize dissent, something I believe this regime could very well invoke.

      Delete
    2. Oh, I don't support it, never have. I've supported the choice Trudeau made on this one for political expediency issue reasons which I have gone over time and again, but in general I think this bill is a horror show. The one thing I am liking about it is how massive some of that overreach is that I cannot see our Supreme Court allowing it to survive challenge.

      I believe I have been aware of what Harper is and what he does and how he abuses the tools and powers of government from longer and farther back than most, so I understand exactly where you are coming from. I'm just not willing to write off the Libs for this one choice even though it is one I dislike intensely, and if it had been made against a more shall we say traditional Canadian government in power I would be far more critical of that decision, but given the record of Harper and how he operates, I think it was the the best option for them to take despite just how ugly this bill truly is. Like I said before, this is a government that uses national security policy and legislation as a club for purely partisan purposes and shapes legislation first by that priority, instead of actual real need, and how well it integrates with prior legislation/laws.

      I guess I'm also a little annoyed by those on the progressive side acting like they believe Trudeau truly supports this abomination, and that the Libs would have done the same thing if they held power, because that is clearly nonsense. I can accept people castigating the Libs for making this decision based on political expediency, that's fair enough, but to ascribe some of the things I've been seeing over the past few months, well that is in a lot of ways mirror image to what I've seen the Right do to their opponents/foes, and with as much connection to truth and fairness. Which given progressives like to claim they are part of the reality based community, part of the "fair play" side of things, well I find that a bit hard to stomach.


      to be concluded...

      Delete
    3. Conclusion:

      I believe this regime has already invoked powers beyond anything ever seen before for its partisan purposes. I believe they have corrupted the RCMP leadership, Revenue Canada, indeed all arms length bodies such as these. I have no trust in the security of the data of Canadians this government holds, but then I've gone into all of this in past comments here and elsewhere. So I trust nothing it puts out, passes, or recommends, and I support nothing it does either.

      I guess what I am trying to say here is that the Libs making this call for what is clearly political expediency reasons as opposed to actually believing in the legislation is a decision I can understand and accept because of how bad things have become, and because of how Harper has proven he operates in campaigns and the way he abuses the powers of his office to trap Liberal leaders in particular. What I have trouble dealing with is the idea that the Libs actually support this because they believe in it and are being castigated by progressives for that despite it being clearly obvious from the outset why this decision was taken as it was. I don't mind the Libs and Trudeau getting called out for things, I just want them called out for things they are actually doing and the reasons for it, and not further mythmakling and fiction, which too much of this business around C51 has felt like to me.

      This is not any defence of the bill or of this government, and it is a defence of the Libs only to a point. I would have been a lot happier if they hadn't of felt they needed to do this, and even more so if my own read of the political landscape didn't agree with them, especially in how Harper clearly planned on using a Lib rejection of C51. Then of course I would have been happier again if Harper had been prevented from coming to power by those progressives who claim to place principles first all the time (except when it gets in the way of their electoral ambitions as the last decade proved) who are so outraged by the actions of the Libs and Trudeau here. There is a stench wafting off many of them that is a blend of hypocrisy and sanctimony I find exceptionally disgusting. I'm not saying this of you or MoS btw, just to be clear, I am talking about a lot of those on the Dipper side who have been feasting on this for a while now.

      Anyway, I've said my piece, and we clearly are going to disagree, but at least we disagree respectfully. Pity that has become so hard to find in our political discourse these past 10-15 years now...*sigh*

      Delete
    4. Thanks again, Scotian, for your well-considered thoughts. I was thinking the same thing that we in the blogosphere can respectfully disagree, something so scarce today, as you say.

      Delete
  3. Makes you wonder how the Libs could support it, eh Lorne? Even Trudeau critic, Kinsella, thinks C-51 warranted. I am astonished how Liberal supporters can stomach this. Got that Green Party membership yet Lorne?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still in the dithering stage, Mound.

      Delete
  4. .. the simplest terms .. The Harper Government is corrupt..
    Oh.. did I mention incompetant? How about conceit & arrogance?
    Conniving & manipulative, secretive and obstructive.. deceitful & false

    What was your question again? oh yes.. about Trust

    Back to simple terms, its ridiculous to conceive of any trust
    if one knows all those other dangerous traits are present.

    Analogies and metaphors abound.. but again reducing to simplest terms and facts, Harper has completely failed in regard to protecting Canada and Canadians. That's public record. Along comes Harper with C-51 as a poison pill make believe load of hogwash terror protection to distract from fact.

    Its Harper's brave new world of spies, 5 Eyes, datawanking, foreign wars for votes & pimping us as Israel's greatest defenders. Never mind our coastlines, they're for offloading LNG, diluted bitumen and raw logs - why bother protecting them? He's corrupted the national police force somehow & appoints former security guards as ambassadors in Arabia.

    Economic protection? Failed us there.. goes off to Russia to sign secret trade deals with Communist China.. and now he primps in photo ops, peering through binoculars at those bad Russian ships tracking him.

    Its all been a wonderful glam ride for the smartest mail clerk in the room. The bad Chauncey Gardener of your nightmares and the rest of Canada. What's to trust? Everything about Stephen Harper is toxic. He draws similar wannabe psychos to him. Failures and fakers like Tony Clement, dark men like Tom Flanagan, fluffers & buffoons like Blaney & Anders, pretenders like Rona Ambrose & the manipulative evangels that are all over his political operation.

    How far can we get away from these creeps.. That's the correct trust level ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Salamander,

      All we can hope and work for is a complete purging of this toxic presence. Only then can Canada begin to regain its spiritual, social and economic health.

      Delete