Campbell's Green agenda, Harper's hidden agenda, and Quebec Attack ads
Yesterday I had a bad cold so I really couldn't blog on the issues, but now that I am better, here is my update. I should note we just got pummeled with a large snow storm here in Toronto, although I still managed to get work.
Campbell's throne speech proposed reducing GHGs by 33% by 2020. This is no doubt an ambitious agenda, but one I wholeheartedly support and I sincerely hope other provinces follow suit with similiar ones. Campbell has often by good at getting anything done he says he will no matter how difficult, so I have no doubt we in BC can achieve this. I also hope the federal government realizes this is not a left-right issue or an economy vs. the environment issue, but one of building a prosperous but sustainable future.
It is now apparent that Harper has been stacking the judicial advisory committee to give it a more conservative bent and in today's question period, he actually admits he wants more conservative judges. Here is the story .
This is absolutely outrageous. Even if he is only doing it because he wants criminals to get tougher sentences, this sets a very dangerous precedent. The judiciary is part of our checks and balances and this could serious undermine it. In addition we have even more reason to fear he wants to impose a socially conservative agenda. Besides even for those on the right who feel judges are too activist, as John Ibbitson points out, once one government does this, it is pretty much a guarantee future governments will do it to, i.e. meaning more liberal judges when the Liberals return to office. The judiciary should be made up of the best qualified people in the legal field regardless of their political beliefs.
The Tories have released a series of attack ads in Quebec. I must say I like these ones better than the English ones. Unlike the English ones that have a somewhat nasty tone, these ones are actually humourous, although I've heard Quebecers respond better to humourous ones that ones with a nasty tone. As for whether they will work or not, my guess is they won't. The last ones do appeared to have been effective in Ontario, but not elsewhere, which is very similiar to 2004 when the Liberal attack ads worked in Ontario but not in the other provinces. Although I guess when you consider Ontario is the largest province, that is maybe good enough.
Campbell's throne speech proposed reducing GHGs by 33% by 2020. This is no doubt an ambitious agenda, but one I wholeheartedly support and I sincerely hope other provinces follow suit with similiar ones. Campbell has often by good at getting anything done he says he will no matter how difficult, so I have no doubt we in BC can achieve this. I also hope the federal government realizes this is not a left-right issue or an economy vs. the environment issue, but one of building a prosperous but sustainable future.
It is now apparent that Harper has been stacking the judicial advisory committee to give it a more conservative bent and in today's question period, he actually admits he wants more conservative judges. Here is the story .
This is absolutely outrageous. Even if he is only doing it because he wants criminals to get tougher sentences, this sets a very dangerous precedent. The judiciary is part of our checks and balances and this could serious undermine it. In addition we have even more reason to fear he wants to impose a socially conservative agenda. Besides even for those on the right who feel judges are too activist, as John Ibbitson points out, once one government does this, it is pretty much a guarantee future governments will do it to, i.e. meaning more liberal judges when the Liberals return to office. The judiciary should be made up of the best qualified people in the legal field regardless of their political beliefs.
The Tories have released a series of attack ads in Quebec. I must say I like these ones better than the English ones. Unlike the English ones that have a somewhat nasty tone, these ones are actually humourous, although I've heard Quebecers respond better to humourous ones that ones with a nasty tone. As for whether they will work or not, my guess is they won't. The last ones do appeared to have been effective in Ontario, but not elsewhere, which is very similiar to 2004 when the Liberal attack ads worked in Ontario but not in the other provinces. Although I guess when you consider Ontario is the largest province, that is maybe good enough.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 4:44 PM
9 Comments:
I'm not exactly a fan of the Campbell Government or the BC Liberals, but some big kudos to him for his ambitious green agenda- and esp. for committing to creating biofuel from pine bettle-kill trees. That will help Northern BC a great deal.
Well, on the courts issue, what do you expect- the Reformers have been screaming for "law-and-order" judges for years. One of the things that makes me feel proud as a Canadian is our independent, even if it is unelected, judiciary. I've met Americans who say that our system is more fair than most others (and I'm not just talking about liberal/progressive Democrats). The benefits of taking the partisanship out of the judiciary is that it frees judges to carefully weigh the facts of all sides and to consider public opinion (but they're not dependent upon it).
I've seen the French attack-ads- a little witty, but you still have to wonder as to the desperation of the neo-tories. Though I would have to wonder as to why Quebecers would support a neo-con party of which some of its prominent members are dedicated to eradicating the "welfare state". Even with the neo-tories' decentralizing tendencies, would an autonomous Quebec (and it's social-spending madness) be able to suck large amounts of Federal cash from a Alberta-Conservative-based government?
As for the courts - I fully concur. If they want tougher sentences, change the laws, but don't politicize the judiciary.
As for Quebec not wanting the neo-cons, lets remember they are only in the low 20s in Quebec so I think even in a province as progressive as Quebec it is not too hard to find 20% who will subscribe to neo-conservatism or at least be sympathetic to it. The point is over 75% want a more progressive government, so I think that is a pretty large majority.
hidden................... .....................agenda.......................
sorry, I'm still laughing.......
you guys are still trying that?
And what's the funniest is your basing it on Harper's frank, open statements on the matter.
(as opposed to the Libs who did it for years while feigning impartiality - I guess all those Lib appointments were coincidence).
Holy shit you guys are funny.
Anonymous - Laugh at all you want, but I don't think the Canadian voters will be amused. If anything this is the type of thing that has hurt Harper in the past and if he keeps it up, will result in his defeat.
Miles posted: "Campbell's throne speech proposed reducing GHGs by 33% by 2020. This is no doubt an ambitious agenda, but one I wholeheartedly support and I sincerely hope other provinces follow suit with similiar ones."
We don't really have much of a choice, now, do we? If 2020 is an "ambitious agenda" what the hell is 2012?
You know, that thing the opposition passed today.
Sheesh.
Exactly Lance. 2020 targets gets kudos and applause as very ambitious!!! Think about it Miles, I have never thought of you as a hypocrite until that statement.
''When Irwin Cotler was Liberal minister of justice, the following became judges:
Michael Brown, Cotler’s executive assistant and policy adviser.
Yves de Montigny, Cotler’s chief of staff.
Randall Echlin, legal counsel to the Ontario Liberal party.
Rosalie Abella, named to the Supreme Court of Canada, wife of Cotler’s close friend Irving Abella.
Marsha Erb, Alberta Liberal fundraiser and close friend of Alberta Liberal cabinet minister Anne McLellan.
John J. Gill, co-chair of the 2004 Alberta federal Liberal campaign.
Vital Ouellette, unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the 1997 and 2000 provincial elections.
Bryan Mahoney, Liberal candidate twice defeated by Calgary Tory Myron Thompson.
Edmond Blanchard, former Liberal minister of finance in New Brunswick.
Of course, only Liberals are entitled to receive patronage appointments. Even when the Conservatives are in power.''
h/t The Politic.com
We can debate patronage 'til we are red (or in the Conservatives' case- blue) in the face. Trudeau and Turner 's patronage sprees in 1984. Mulroney's "every single, living breathing Tory" gets a patronage appointment.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives deal in pure, unbridled patronage which must be curbed- but its not likely to happen soon- a sad aspect of politics
And before Dippers get their two cents in- the NDP would be just as bad, if not worse, than both the Tories and the Grits- just look at their idols the Labour Party in the UK with the "cash for peerages" scandal.
Conservatives are going to appoint Conservatives just like Liberals appointed Liberals. period. It's the fun part of being 'the government'.
No problem, as long as they are qualified for the job.
Canadians voted in Conservatives on a tough on crime and safer streets platform. Libs & Dippers campaigned on it too.
If the next batch of judges are tough on criminals (don't rule Child Porn is 'Artistic Expression') how is that not what all parties claimed they wanted too, in 2006?
Exactly Lance. 2020 targets gets kudos and applause as very ambitious!!! Think about it Miles, I have never thought of you as a hypocrite until that statement.
Had the Tories even brought in a plan similiar to that, I doubt the Liberals would be making the big issue they are. The reality is if the Tories continue their ways, GHGs will go up by 2020, not down. This bill was intended to get them to smarten up, which they haven't done.
Of course, only Liberals are entitled to receive patronage appointments. Even when the Conservatives are in power.''
My problem is not just with the patronage, but also with the fact many are social conservatives. Any judge who would stand aside and let a government violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ought not sit on the bench.
Canadians voted in Conservatives on a tough on crime and safer streets platform. Libs & Dippers campaigned on it too.
If the next batch of judges are tough on criminals (don't rule Child Porn is 'Artistic Expression') how is that not what all parties claimed they wanted too, in 2006?
This is an example of where the public is wrong and the experts are right. Study after study shows tougher sentences don't work. I fully understand why they are popular since most of us aren't criminals and don't understand what makes them tick, but if the evidence says they don't work, it is irresponsible to ignore the evidence because of one's ideology.
Besides if the Tories want longer sentences, change the laws, judges only deal with what the law allows.
Post a Comment
<< Home