The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, CBC, and other left-wing media outlets are decrying Prime Minister Harper's decision to prorogue parliament. Their claim is that his move is undemocratic because it prevents the government from debating key issues of the day.
I appeal to those who prefer less government when I say that Harper's move is good for democracy. Allow me to explain...
Whenever government acts, by passing laws or regulations, those laws inevitably restrict individuals, groups, or entities from acting in a certain way or force people to act in a certain manner. Government cannot act without the threat of coercion. Government is, inevitably and unavoidably, an instrument of violence. The threat of violence underpins every government action. If it did not then armies, police, guards, and secret services would be unnecessary.
Since government cannot do anything for the next few months, the people of Canada will be free from any further restrictions on their every day choices and actions. The new scanners in airports will never come about because of a government act anyway, it will be an administrative decision by unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can or can't take on an airplane, so the issue is basically moot.
However, I thank Mr. Harper for making it possible for the government to do virtually nothing in the coming months. We should be protesting for more prorogues, term limits, and a part-time legislature.
The less the government tries to "help" me or spread my income around, the better.
The Strong Conservative Blog
- Strong Conservative
- Toronto
- "People should not fear the government, government should fear the people." - V
19 comments:
That is the best argument yet for the prorogue of Parliament — that is, assuming Orders in Council aren't used as a substitute for legislation.
Alas, Canadians, it would seem, disagree:
- 53% oppose prorogation; 19 per cent support; 28% undecided.
- 60% of Ontarians oppose.
- Only a minority of Conservative supporters (46%) support.
- 38% think prorogation is being invoked to curtail an inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees.
They may disagree, which is why I'm making a counter argument to the moonbat press.
"to the moonbat press"
You must mean "the majority of Canadians" being as we are the ones you need to try to convince.
The "majority" of Canadians don't care that Harper is proroguing again...
http://www.globalpost.com/webblog/canada/pre-prorogue-poll
That's a pre-prorogue poll, Johnathan, conducted in the abstract, during the busy-ness of the lead-up to the holidays. Now that Canadians who are not elected MPs are back at work and Harper has actually shut down Parliament, polls show that we do in fact care very much. Over half of Canadians polled oppose the suspension of Parliament or, as one Conservative MP put it yesterday, the "suspension of democracy and Parliament". And only 19% share your support.
What is interesting about that poll is that, even then only a fraction of the population actually supported suspending democracy and Parliament.
Suspending parliament is not a suspension of democracy. If it was, every summer break, christmas break, & Victoria Day would be classified as such.
Yeah, because democracy is well served by keeping the person I actually voted for from actually doing their job.
You folks are really reaching here.
This particular minority parliament has actually tried to keep the power of government (specifically the executive branch) in check.
By proroguing, the legislative branch cannot act as a check on the executive branch, and the result is less freedom, as the government can still enact regulations that severely limit our freedoms. Parliament not sitting also means that legislation that might increase our freedoms (such as eliminating the gun registry) is also delayed.
I'm sorry, I completely reject your argument. We're paying them to do a job, the least they could do is actually show up to work.
This is a pretty weak argument.
Proroguing Parliament doesn't shut the government, as an institution, down.
True, it just shuts down oversight and accountability.
Patrick, you should go take a refresher in how Westminster parliaments work.
Poly - the fact that the govt will be taking a 2 month break is hardly a threat to the westminister system or democracy as a whole. To say that democracy is threatened by this is ridiculous. Do you believe that democracy is threatened every summer when the politicians go on break?
Canadians will be better served by having parliament in session when the country is not distracted by the Olympics. The full attention of the country can return to the House of Commons following the Winter Games.
Also, as previously stated, I'm glad the govt won't be doing anything for a few months. Perhaps it'll save us a few bucks in operational expenses.
Democracy is undermined whenever the PM takes unilateral action to avoid accountability.
Sometimes it is a undermining that has no edges and is difficult to object against, like the centralization of decision making and power in the PMO at the expense of our elected representatives. This certainly did not start with Harper. In fact, the power of MPs and the need for them to represent their constituents was one of the very big things he used to oppose because it was one of the central issues for Reform. This, like so much of pre-2006 Stephen Harper, is long gone.
And sometimes the undermining is clear as day, like when a PM shuts down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote or accountability questions.
For clarification though, the fact that some people, including Harper himself, think that this government is not capable of doing its job and chewing gum at the same time - unlike during the Olympics in Calgary and unlike every other democracy which has ever hosted the Olympics - brings into question their competence not just their accountability.
83 days off for a 2 week event that does not involve more than one or two of them on a day to day basis, is a laughable excuse. And one which only highlights the real reason, the cutting and running from accountability.
"Patrick, you should go take a refresher in how Westminster parliaments work."
I'd say you should.
Parliament and government are separate institutions. While the proguation of Parliament deprives the state of its legislative capabilities, the government continues to function.
While new laws cannot be passed when Parliament isn't in session, the Prime Minister and cabinet remain in place.
In fact, Poly, I'd encourage you to learn what an "order in council" is. There's a lot of things the government can do in the absence of Parliament.
Similarly, Parliament is also a heck of a lot more than just legislative.
By shutting down Parliament, reports cannot be received, committees cannot meet (assuming Harper wasn't going to continue to shut these down as well), emergency legislation cannot be passed.
More importantly, the government's primary accountability check is completely removed.
Anarchy is wonderful if everybody plays by the rules.
Jonathan,
I think your anti-government bias is affecting they way you should be looking at this issue.
For any democracy to function it needs, at its core, a system of functioning checks and balances and an attitude of skeptical trust in the government. You may not agree with the amount that they are involved in your life, but I would think that you would at least agree that we need a democratic, elected government of some size, at the very least to guard against an individual gaining control of our military forces and turning them against the population.
I don't for a moment think that this is what Mr. Harper will do, but I *do* think that his attitude towards the whole situation is something to be opposed. We cannot be complacent about any person being able to effectively shut out our elected officials simply because it is convenient for them to not be sitting in Ottawa.
Big government or small government, Mr. Harper's actions cannot stand. The argument that it will save a few more dollars or prevent them from getting their hands on your money is naive at best. The government can do a lot without having to go through Parliament; it's Parliament, namely the opposition parties, that are the insiders into the functioning of the government. If they are trying to sneak through special funding, or shut the door against allegations of torture, then we, the people, need to have our opposition parties in on the conversation and not at the beck and call of a single party. Without them, the Conservative party of Canada is a 'black box'.
Andrew: you say "You may not agree with the amount that they are involved in your life, but I would think that you would at least agree that we need a democratic, elected government of some size, at the very least to guard against an individual gaining control of our military forces and turning them against the population."
Are you serious? What's next "soldiers in Canadian cities"?
"Big government or small government, Mr. Harper's actions cannot stand."
Um, wrong. It is totally legal, it will stand, and its been done many times before.
Your rhetorical flourish is over the top and detracts from the real debate. Get a grip.
Post a Comment