Well, so far this campaign has, at the very least, been interesting. As the 'dump Harper' forces cheer at what the polls seem to suggest is a late surge for the Liberals and stagnation of the Cons (depending on which polls you look at), the HarperCons are ratcheting up the fear and hate campaign on which they have so long relied. The latest disgusting example of Harper politics of hate and fear are an ad specifically aimed at racialized groups in Vancouver and Toronto which say that Trudeau wants to give children drugs, fully legalize prostitution and then dictate where 'brothels' will be, and put safe injection sites on every corner.
Who knows if these ads will have any effect. Given that the years of attacks on Trudeau seem to have had no effect at all, one has to doubt it, but you can never tell. Maybe there are people out there who will believe such nonsense.
In what is perhaps the most deliciously ironic moment of the campaign, that college dropout, perpetual adolescent, dimwitted, Conservative factotum, Jason Kenny, took to Twitter this week to complain that it is the Liberals who are waging a fear campaign. The evidence for these charges are found in the form of a Liberal flyer that overstated the present power of Bill-C24. The idea of any Conservative in this country accusing ANYONE of waging an unfair campaign of fear is so rich that it defies the imagination. But so goes politics in the poison atmosphere created by the HarperCons.
There is, of course, a deeper irony here. The Conservatives are not just lying or misrepresenting the facts of Liberal policies. First of all, the Liberal Party has never, to my knowledge advocated legalizing prostitution, let alone floated the idea of dictating the locations of brothels. Second of all, the idea that Trudeau wants to give or sell drugs to kids is so absurd that it is an accusation that is beneath contempt. But the irony is found in the fact that both these Conservative allegations are related to a situation in which a Liberal government would increase freedoms - ie. freedom to use marijuana and (following certain impulses handed down by the Supreme Court) decimalize prostitution. In this regard the Conservatives have certainly jettisoned any libertarian impulse (if, indeed, they ever had one) given that the concern raised by the Liberal pamphlet is one in which the power of the Government is radically enhanced over individuals. The very principle opened up by Bill C-24 should make everyone in this country worried. If the principle is entrenched in law that the federal government can take away someone's citizenship FOR ANY REASON, none of us will ever be safe again.
The HarperCons really are irony impaired.
The other candidate (no pun intended) for the richest irony yet to be seen in this campaign came today, when it was announced that Harper will appear at a Toronto rally hosted by the Ford Brothers. WOW, you really couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. The Prime Minister who has been continually deriding Trudeau's 'soft on drugs' approach, has decided to align himself with a known Crack Addict, Alcoholic and his brother who, according to a long investigative report with many eyewitnesses, was a long term drug dealer. But that is Harper for you, he doesn't really care about drugs or addicts or anything else except staying in power so he does a benefit analysis and decides that he stands to gain more in certain suburban Toronto ridings by appearing with drug-dealers and/or smokers than he stands to lose elsewhere in this close campaign.
In an added moment of irony, Doug Ford told Canadians that Trudeau is not fit to be Prime Minister because he smoked pot a couple of times years ago. This is good stuff people!
Katalog Dapur Aqiqah
8 months ago
6 comments:
Now now. Just because Rob Ford smoked crack doesn't mean for certain that his meets the criteria for addiction to that particular substance.
Harpers whistling in the wind Kirby. It's almost painful to watch him. Unless he can pull a terrorist out of a hat, he's toast.
"never, to my knowledge advocated legalizing *abortion*, let alone floated the idea of dictating the locations of brothels". Do you mean 'prostitution'?
Thanks Buckets, yes I did mean that, I guess my concentration wandered a bit.
It has long-been establish that citizenship can be removed if it is determined to have been obtained through fraud. Losing citizenship voluntarily has also been an option (ie, you are legally allowed to renounce your citizenship). So the principles and possibility of losing citizenship has been there for quite some time.
Thousands of people have lost their citizenship over the decades due to these principles.
The latest extension of this concept is extended to those convicted of treason and terrorism, and also is possible with several convictions under the National Defence Act (the Code of Service Discipline which applies mainly to Canadian Forces members).
@ Anonymous - your response if fairly nonsensical. FIrst of all, someone voluntarily giving up their citizenship has nothing to do with the issue since it doesn't reflect a power of government to do something. It is entirely irrelevant from a legal or ethical point of view. Secondly, the ability to take someone's citizenship when it has been attained through fraud is not an issue of government power per se since law has always dictated that a contract entered into fraudulently cannot be enforced. In other words there is no social contract or reciprocity when a document has been fraudulently obtained. However, giving the government power to remove that social contract once legally entered into is an entirely different matter and qualitatively and quantitatively separate. Once the government takes this power it de facto means that there is no social contract because the principle, once upheld, can be enforced for any reason that a government sees fit. The social contract, once undertaken, means that we are collectively responsible for both the good and the bad actions of fellow citizens. We cannot simply absolve ourselves of it and/or lay that responsibility over to some other government. It is a principle that, once abandoned destroys the very notion of citizenship. Various Conservatives have already ruminated on the idea of taking away citizenship from people born in Canada from recent immigrant parents. They have mused on it publicly precisely because they have already abandoned the social contract in favour of their own power. It is a Pandora's box which, once opened, cannot be closed and will result in fascism.
Post a Comment