Harper's Missteps and Correct Steps
A lot has happened this week, some which I support, but most which I don't. I'll start off with the few things the Cons did that I support so no one can accuse me of being a blind partisan. I agree with their position to get rid of the gun registry, which I see as ineffective and a waste of taxpayer's money. Unlike the gun lobby, I support licencing for all long-gun owners, but I don't believe each individual gun needs to be registered.
However, there are couple of things I am not happy about. I think their quick move to call a vote on the extending the Afghanistan mission for two years without adequate time for debate will ill-considered. This is a serious mission that should be debated fully and also should be extended for one year, not two if the House so chooses. Too bad it passed narrowly, although I am glad many Liberals voted against it. Likewise, while I am disappointed Ignatieff and Brison supported the government, I agree with them on enough other issues that this won't affect my decision to support them or not. I think Harper's comment that he will go back to the electorate if it doesn't pass is quite arrogant, but off course considering how unpopular the mission is becoming, he would likely lose the election if this were the main issue. I support the opposition on refusing to allow Gwyn Morgan's appointment to go through. I agree Gwyn Morgan is an accomplished CEO for Encana and I even myself have bought shares in their company in the past. However, the fact he is a Conservative partisan not to mention his comments on Jamaican immigrants make him the wrong choice for the appointment. The fact Stephen Harper insists on having him or no one is quite petty. I am sure there are other Canadians who can do just as good a job. Finally I feel Canada has been a complete embarassment at the Bonn Conference. Harper maybe doing a good job at repairing relations with the United States, but he is harming our relations with everyone else. I opposed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol since I thought the targets were unachievable, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. We should still set achievable targets and we shouldn't be chairing a climate change conference if we aren't committed to taking action on climate change.
However, there are couple of things I am not happy about. I think their quick move to call a vote on the extending the Afghanistan mission for two years without adequate time for debate will ill-considered. This is a serious mission that should be debated fully and also should be extended for one year, not two if the House so chooses. Too bad it passed narrowly, although I am glad many Liberals voted against it. Likewise, while I am disappointed Ignatieff and Brison supported the government, I agree with them on enough other issues that this won't affect my decision to support them or not. I think Harper's comment that he will go back to the electorate if it doesn't pass is quite arrogant, but off course considering how unpopular the mission is becoming, he would likely lose the election if this were the main issue. I support the opposition on refusing to allow Gwyn Morgan's appointment to go through. I agree Gwyn Morgan is an accomplished CEO for Encana and I even myself have bought shares in their company in the past. However, the fact he is a Conservative partisan not to mention his comments on Jamaican immigrants make him the wrong choice for the appointment. The fact Stephen Harper insists on having him or no one is quite petty. I am sure there are other Canadians who can do just as good a job. Finally I feel Canada has been a complete embarassment at the Bonn Conference. Harper maybe doing a good job at repairing relations with the United States, but he is harming our relations with everyone else. I opposed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol since I thought the targets were unachievable, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. We should still set achievable targets and we shouldn't be chairing a climate change conference if we aren't committed to taking action on climate change.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 10:24 PM
2 Comments:
Miles, do you or your latte-sipping Liberal buddies ever look at the big picture and not just what is politically correct?
Taboo as Morgan's comments were, they were TRUE. I lived in Toronto, I had to hear about all these homicides occurring all over the place, and I can tell you right now, the majority of them were committed by gang members who originally came from Jamaica or the Phillipines. So, basically, you and the opposition MPs are condemning Morgan for telling the truth?!? That can't be right.
It is not to say ALL Jamaicans or ALL Filipinos are gang members. Many are great people. I have met some very nice Jamaican-Canadians in my time in Toronto; however, I do know they too are upset with this rash of gang violence. Many have even blatantly stated they left their nation of origin to escape this violence, and its simply followed them.
My point is this: those comments weren't racist, they were pretty much true. Until you've actually lived in Toronto, the belly of the beast for such horrendous activity, you can't make judgments on these comments. I don't know about Calgary, whether it has the same type of gang-related problems, but what I do know is, concerning Toronto, he was pretty much right on the mark.
As for Morgan, he was qualified for the job, one of the best candidates one could conjure, and he was rejected for honesty and because he supported a party the opposition didn't like? Boo hoo! Given all the unqualified Liberals who received patronage appointments during their twelve years in power, I'd say at least the Conservatives found one of their own kind that was qualified for the job.
My problem is not that Harper choose him, but his my way or the highway attitude when it was rejected. Surely there is someone else out of 32 million Canadians who is highly qualified.
His statements were inappropriate. On issues relating to race and ethnicity there is a proper way and an inappropriate way to make a point, how he said it was not appropriate. I've worked at enough private sector jobs and have been to enough interviews to know that even in the private sector I wouldn't be hired if someone found out I made such a statement. And once hired if I made such a statement I would be disciplined and possibly fired if done repeatedly. If it is not tolerated in the private sector, than nor should it be in the public sector. Finally governments must represent all Canadians and anything that might be offensive to a certain group should not be tolerated. Such statements may be fine as private citizen, but when representing the public we need to set the bar higher, otherwise lead by example.
The reason crime is higher amongst certain ethnic groups is due to higher levels of pverty. Rather than negatively stereotyping these people we should work with those communities to reduce the root causes that lead to crime.
Post a Comment
<< Home