So I don’t know if the non-Canadians have been paying attention, but this latest bit of Stephen Harper’s fuckery should probably merit it. Remember this story the next time you complain about your country’s politicians, because there simply isn’t a more pathetic political class in any first-world country than Canada’s.
See, the thing is that right now, the Tories are undergoing a bit of a scandal. Well, they’re always in a bit of a scandal – that’s Canadian politics for you – but right now there’s the Afghan detainee scandal, wherein it increasingly appears that the Conservative government did not merely turn a blind eye to what happened when Afghan detainees were transferred to Afghan custody – where those detainees were almost certainly tortured – but in fact deliberately tried to cover up the fact that they were taking a blind eye (seeing as how that would be illegal). There’s been numerous calls for a independent public inquiry to investigate the matter.1 The Tories have been very clear that this will not happen on their watch.
However, the Tories have come up with a clever tactic to hopefully make this all go away: Stephen Harper has prorogued Parliament. Or, in less arcane English, he’s shut it down until the budget is due in March, over two months from now. This is the second time in a year Harper has prorogued Parliament in order to buy time and make a difficult political situation go away; the first time was to avoid a coalition government from removing him from the seat of power, which was, to say the least, ethically questionable.
But there isn’t anything questionable about this time: Harper and the Tories are simply trying to buy time so that people will get distracted from the scandal, hopefully by the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. And there’s no question that there’s no other reason for them to do this: Harper’s excuse is that the federal government needs to “recalibrate” its response to the economic downturn, which is just an insult to Canada’s collective intelligence. Harper proroguing Parliament stalled progress on his own crime bills – which are terrible, terrible bills, don’t get me wrong, but that he’s done it illustrates just how desperate he is for this to go away.
If Canada’s political leadership had any balls worth mentioning, Harper would be a walking dead man politically. But they don’t, so he might get out of this intact. Which is a shame, because a goddamn three-year-old could pin him to the wall if he felt like it. This is pathetic, a new low in Harper’s only very slender respect for the political traditions of this country: he and his government simply don’t give a damn about the politics of compromise. All those years of jerking off to the Bush Administration’s antics taught Harper the wrong lesson: namely, that government only works when you’re willing to play by the unwritten rules.
It’s not an incorrect lesson, because it’s true. But in order to use it, you have to be amoral in the worst kind of way. And look who we’ve got as Prime Minister.
- Unsurprisingly, Bob Rae has had to basically lead the Liberals on this issue. This is partially because Michael Ignatieff’s track record on torture makes him look like a staggering hypocrite when he tries to talk about the issue, and partially because Michael Ignatieff is a useless limpdick. [↩]
Related Articles
15 users responded in this post
While you’re right about Harper, you have to admit that compromise seems to be almost entirely anathema to the Canadian political system. It’s certainly not a part of our political traditions, or at the least, it hasn’t been a tradition in the last 40 years. You just have to look at the actions of Trudeau (NEP) or Mulroney (GST) to see that, but there are numerous other examples. Our government does what it wants; Harper’s just the first to figure out how to do it with a minority.
While we’re on the subject, do you have any particular recommendations for Canadian political blogs? Not that I don’t like what you’re doing here, but it’s not exactly the main attraction.
Is anyone surprised that Harper is snuffing democracy? I mean, it is a proven tactic to keep his ass out of the fire, so why not use it when it is so effective. It doesn’t matter that it is blatantly anti-democratic, he’s a power-grubbing douche and always has been.
Also, Matt, I highly recommend Canadian Cynic for an extra snarky lefty take on Politics.
Remember this story the next time you complain about your country’s politicians, because there simply isn’t a more pathetic political class in any first-world country than Canada’s.
Don’t sell the US short! Our political class is far more pathetic and morally adrift than yours. Especially since Harper seems to have learned this trick from Bush…
Typing “Useless Limpdick” into Google provides you as the top three results.
Well, since Canadian news never gets reported here in the US, I don’t know enough to contribute much to this discussion. But I guess I can follow the American tradition of talking anyway, even when I know almost nothing about the subject.
I wonder sometimes if the Westminster type of government contributes to a lot of the problems you complain about in this blog. I really can’t imagine how you could avoid this sort of dirty politics, when your Constitution concentrates all of the power in the hands of party bosses. But I know I could be wrong. We’ve got more than enough sleazy politics here in the US, and the party leaders are relatively weak here.
So your Government handed over prisoners to be tortured by other countries? And then tried to cover it up?
Well, my Government did all that, AND did some torturing of its own as well.
So, in comparison, maybe your Government isn’t so bad after all.
So when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament, he stalled progress on his own crime bills? Does this mean those tough mandatory minimum sentences are not going into effect? At least not yet? Shouldn’t you all be celebrating even the smallest of delays?
(Hasn’t anyone in Harper’s regime taken a look at the US to see what sort of damage those madatory minimums can do to a society? When I first heard that Canada was planning to duplicate some of our worst criminal justice laws, I was totally shocked. I can’t figure out how anyone can support laws like that after seeing the results.)
Mary Warner: Concerning the mandatory minimum sentencing standards, a lot of people support them in the US because of an unfortunately timed trend of crime decreasing in the mid to late 1990s. While most researchers pretty clearly said that these mandatory minimums weren’t the cause, it gave politicians enough political hay to make them seem successful, especially since the researchers couldn’t point to the exact reason why crime was on the decline.
And as a note, I say it was unfortunately timed because of the support it helped bad laws keep. I don’t think crime going down was a bad thing.
“Tough on crime” delivers votes where the Conservatives don’t need them, and hurts wherever it matters. Until Albertans find new crazy to park their votes at, expect those bills to keep on dying on the order papers.
Yay.
The Guardian provides a very neat additional account of what’s going on for non-Canadians, albeit with less references to the non-tumuscence of Michael Ignatieff:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/01/democracy-stephen-harper
I just read that Guardian editorial. It doesn’t really say much that hasn’t been said here, but it’s kind of fun seeing how crude and mean some of the comments are.
I was wondering if there’s been any attempts to ammend the Constitution to put more limits on the Prime Minister’s power. Maybe this is just my American ignorance speaking, but things I have read here and elsewhere give me the impression that the Canadian PM has a lot more power than the US president (and I think the US president has way too much power himself). I know I may be wrong with this impression, because I’m sure the fragmentary news I get is pretty distorted. (I think it always works that way. I’ve noticed that foreigners tend to assume the US president has more authority than he actually does– in fact, most Americans overestimate his power. The way news is reported tends to do that.)
I don’t even know how you amend the Constitution in Canada. Maybe you need the Prime Minster’s approval for any amendment, in which case you’re probably screwed.
I’m a big believer in divided government, with power dispersed throughout the different branches, to minimise the damage any one part can do. (Just imagine how much horror Bush could’ve accomplished if he didn’t have to negotiate with Congress for everything.)
At least Canada is a federal country, so that puts some limits on what Harper can do. (Unlike say, Britain. From what I hear, their Prime Minister might even be worse than yours.)
I have no respect for Stephen Harper. Absolutely none at all.
Hopefully this bites him in the ass come election day.
@Mary Warner
Amending the Canadian Constitution in such a way is certainly possible according to our laws, but actually getting it done would require little short of a miracle. Unanimous consent from the legislatures of all the provinces, plus approval from the House and the Senate. Not to mention that there is an expectation that such an amendment would require a referendum in each province before consent was given.
Since 1982 (when we got our Constitution) there have been ten amendments. A pretty impressive number. Except for the fact that that list includes things like “renamed a province” and “built a bridge”.
Sadly, even if Michaelle Jean had told Harper to stuff it and not allowed him to prorogue, the Conservatives would still have one. Instead of a debate about whether Harper is a douchebag we would be having a a debate about Governor General overreach. Harpo has all of his bastardly bases covered.
It’s nice (and by nice I mean prompts stabbing impulses) to see Stephen Harper carrying on his own version of the Bush Legacy.
Technical question: MGK, which WordPress plugin do you use for those footnotes? I love the footnotes on this blog, and I want to use the same on my own.
Are you saying Harper’s initial proroguing was ethically questionable, or the other parties’ threat of a coalition government was ethically questionable? Because I’ve heard people say the latter, and I don’t really understand it (though I come from a country where coalition governments are the norm, so the idea of people who collectively have the support of a majority of the population forming a government doesn’t strike me as unusual in any way).