EnMasse

[thwap]

I've take some criticism for describing the harpercon majority government as "illegitimate." This criticism tends to come from empty-headed morons whose opinions I have as much regard for as I would a huge, steaming piece of dog-shit on my front steps.

There seems to be some inexplicable confusion regarding the justification for my categorization of stephen harper's government.

I arrived at my conclusions about harper from my positive reaction to Brigette DePape's protest in the Senate Chamber during the Speech From the Throne. You see, while I endorse the use of extra-Parliamentary tactics and occasional law-breaking, I'm actually very much a Parliament-respectin' kinda guy. As flawed and compromised as our democracy is, it's all we have, and we should work to improve it rather than tear it down.

So, why then, do I have an unvarnished sympathy for Ms. DePape's action? She renounced her oath of non-partisan professionalism, took advantage of her privileged place at the centre of our political system, and expressed her partisan views before a national audience. What sort of democracy would we have if our Parliament was to be opened to everyone who wanted to storm out onto the floor and protest or pontificate?

What sort of democracy would that be?

Well, what sort of democracy do we have now? Let's leave aside the capitalist class's domination of our democracy for a second. Let's focus on the kind of democracy stephen harper would give us:

Government power requires maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons. However, if the majority of the people's representatives have lost confidence in your government, what you do is you turn to the anachronism of the Crown and ask it to shut-down Parliament before the people's representatives can vote you out. You can do this whenever necessary.

We are governed by the Rule of Law and inspired by our respect for human rights. However, if you find yourself in a war, and you're too cheap to provide proper prisons for your detainees, and you hand them over to the US-Americans until they're found to have tortured and killed too many of their prisoners, forcing you to turn them over to another band of torturers, you must do the following:

- Accept no responsibility for as many prisoners as is possible. If you take some prisoners, make sure there is a representative of the torturing home government standing nearby and IMMEDIATELY hand them over to that person. No paperwork = No legal responsibilities!!! (Hopefully.)

- When you're not able to do that, hand the prisoners over to the torturing home government and then delay, delay, delay, telling the International Committee of the Red Cross about them, so that they're unable to keep tabs on their treatment. No evidence = No legal responsibilities!!! (Hopefully.)

- If you have pesky oversight bodies like the Military Police Complaints Commission, frustrate them at every turn and refuse to renew the mandates of chairpersons determined to do their job.

- If the fucking legislature of the pain-in-the-ass representatives of the people try to investigate this issue, call up the Crown and tell Him or Her to shut-down Parliament again, and then give the country some bullshit excuse for killing a year's worth of legislation.

The US-Americans fought their revolution to a great degree based on the idea that there should be no taxation without political representation under the British Constitution. Members of the British Parliament at the time said that they were correct in that assertion. But here in Canada, we have a prime minister who believes that we can have representation, but it should be powerless when it comes to controlling what the government does with the taxation! Parliament should be a rubber-stamp for the government's spending initiatives. If you find yourself with a pesky Speaker of House, who believes that it is Parliament that is the source of power in our democracy, and not the Prime Minister and Cabinet, shrug your shoulders and hope for a more compliant Speaker in the future. Then you can have your "Supreme Soviet" or your "Reichstag." Rely on your shit-head supporters and a large bulk of the rest of the population to regard these essential fundamentals of democratic accountability to be arcane and "boring" details that only political geeks need to care about.

True democracy requires honest and transparent government. (Especially since promising that sort of Accountability was a huge part of your initial rise to power!) However, if the mood strikes you, you should tamper with official government documents to make them say whatever you want them to say, in order to justify whatever it is you want to do. If a Cabinet Minister deliberately lies to Parliament about this, well, that's okay too. This time it was Bev Oda pretending that her staff recommended that KAIROS not be funded. Tomorrow it could be Vic Toews saying that violent crime is shooting through the roof and that the experts recommend the death penalty as the only effective deterrent. Whatever is necessary, once the principle of forgery and lying has been established.

So, that's stephen harper's idea of democracy in Canada. And, thanks to the apathy of almost 40% of the electorate who didn't vote at all, and 26% of the electorate who either thought that such assaults on democracy were either cool, or boring, or who had no idea that any of that stuff happened at all, but like their parents always voted Conservative and whatever, ... stephen harper has won a majority government. (Obviously, with the power of a majority government, harper won't have to resort to such blatant abuses to get his way. On the other hand, with the power of a majority government, we'll simply never know about his lies and abuses. It will all be a fait accompli.)

But, again, here's the rub: If the guy who presumes to write the rules for the rest of us doesn't respect the rules himself, why should we meekly acquiesce to his nonsense? If he was elected by people who don't give a shit about our rights in a minority parliament, why should we give a shit about their rights in a majority parliament? If he was elected by people who had no idea what they were doing, and the results of their choice are going to be a disaster for us (to say nothing of conveying a patina of legitimacy to these assaults on the basics of our democratic system), why should we be bound to respect their ignorant choice?

This is not about sour grapes people. I despised the Chretien and Martin Liberals, and, even when they'd help destroy democracy in Haiti, I did not call their power illegitimate. I despised stephen harper's minority government but I even said on this blog that we have to respect the legitimacy of his minority. It is stephen harper who has made himself unfit to govern us. It was stephen harper who trammelled all over the core of our democratic system. And a vote for such a despot is either a vote for despotism which can then make no claim on our respect, or it is a vote out of ignorance, which, given the stakes, likewise has no claim on our respect.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[thwap]

Um, I'm actually a little proud of this piece. Please comment.


_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[Rufus Polson]

It's at any rate "illegitimate" in the sense that Stephen Harper and pretty much all his cabinet are bastards.

I've noticed in many online comments on, for instance, newspaper articles, that a lot of Canadians don't actually believe in democracy in any real sense. They believe in their team and your team. To them, it's a hockey game, seats, or "my side's legislation passed" = goals, and the point is to get goals by whatever means it takes. If that means taking a penalty now and then, or better yet doing stuff that ought to draw a penalty but getting away with it, then that's what you do. It's just a contest to them, it's not an expression of the people's will or anything.

[Senor Magoo]

It's illegitimate in exactly the same way that anarchists who collect welfare or EI or any other benefit of a state they don't believe in are illegitimate. Of course this comes from one of those empty-headed morons who disagrees with this whole line of thinking, so take it with a grain of salt.

Although I suppose I could be converted, if we were to apply the principle across the board. For example, convicted criminals, who have shown their disdain for our laws, should enjoy no protection by the law, yes? Open season on criminals! Set their hair on fire if you want -- it's not against the law, because criminals don't respect laws!

Can we go there?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[thwap]

[thwap]

[Senor Magoo]

[thwap]

[Senor Magoo]

[thwap]

[Senor Magoo]

[thwap]

Wrong.

I've already explained it to you: The majority of Canadians didn't choose harper.

The people who did choose harper either:

a) didn't know about his despotic actions or didn't grasp their significance

or

b) knew, but didn't care or actively celebrated them.

This is the difference between democracy and despotism here.

Going back to my analogy, we ARE forced to buy the adulterated, overpriced, perhaps poisonous ice-cream from the crook because when it came time to do something about him, some people had their heads up their asses or some people were convinced that they'd profit by joining in on his criminality.

Thanks to those people's decisions, you ARE forced to buy your ice-cream from that guy.

Just as, thanks to the ignorant or anti-democratic opinions of others, you're forced to pay for harper's prsions, his assaults on civil rights, his fraudulent policies based on forged documents, his foreign wars, his service to big oil, .... all of it.

This is important magoo. This is real life. This is our democracy. This isn't a thought experiment. (harper I mean.)

We have one democratic system and harper has abused its fundamentals.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[Senor Magoo]

[thwap]

Well Magoo, i have to thank you for your herculean efforts to find some flaw in my argument to provide me with a debate.

I guess the happy conclusion from your last effort though is that there are no flaws to it.

My argument isn't that it's unfair that politicians I don't like get elected through the votes of people i disagree with and that they will implement policies that i don't agree with.

But you already know that.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[ronb]

It's not because many of us disagree with Harper's policies that makes them undemocratic. It's that he refuses to tell Parliament what they will cost and even what they are that makes them undemocratic - this is the original idea behind the Westminster system - you can't tax us and then not tell us how you plan to spend the money.

[thwap]

He doesn't even say how much money of ours he's going to spend.

I want to re-emphasize: This isn't about sour grapes or simply not liking a politician. I've lived through a whole parade of politicians I couldn't stand.

harper directed a head-on attack on the very basics of our democratic system.

I thought that he'd win another minority and would then be turfed by a coalition.

i hardly considered the possibility of his getting a majority and thereby demonstrating how political debased our culture and our system is.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[thwap]

As I said in my last post, my conclusion that the harpercon government has no legitimate authority arose out of my support for Brigette DePape's violation of Parliamentary decorum during the Speech From the Throne. As I said, I actually have a great deal of reverence for our democratic institutions. I lament how they're compromised and abused and hope for their improvement, whereas stephen harper sees them as barriers to be overcome and burdens to be treated with contempt.

I decided, that since harper treated Parliament with contempt, he had no right to complain when his opponents decided to violate the rules.

And that's what led me to my bigger conclusion. Because, in all honesty, before and during the election I thought that the most likely outcome was another harpercon minority government which would then be swept aside by a coalition, or (smaller possibility), that he would be outright defeated. I gave hardly any thought to the possibility that Canada's political culture was so undemocratic that he would be rewarded with a majority.

But we are so undemocratic and debased (as a people) that he now has the powers of a majority government. That's the new reality. But what to do about it? What if we don't do something about it? Well, look at the downward spiral of US-American politics. There, the people countenanced two stolen elections. Two illegal wars (and now a third one). The torture of their own citizens. Vast government spying networks. The services of the US Coast Guard put at the service of British Petroleum during its oil spill. A President who "looks forward, not backwards" with regards to his predecessor's crimes so that he can maintain and build upon the despotic powers those crimes achieved. A country with a 20 percent unemployment rate and a political elite that focuses on tax cuts for billionaires and deficit reduction on the backs of the poorest. And etc., etc.

There's absolutely no hope for the US-American political system. Especially through elections dominated by the two parties of Wall Street.

And we're almost there, my fellow Canadians. harper's crimes during the past six years have been unprecedented assaults on the basics of Parliamentary democracy. And we, as a people, have let him get away with, ... no, why don't I just say it: REWARD him for his crimes with a majority government (thanks to the votes of enough ignorant, apathetic or anti-democratic people).

The first step in reversing this process is acknowledging the depths to which we have sunk. And doing so on more than a passing intellectual level, as in: "Yeah. I guess you're right. harper has no basis to his claim for my acceptance of his authority." We have to realize that in the real world, we have a despot for a prime minister, elected with the votes of people who either had no clue what they were doing, or who enthusiastically cheered on his violations of parliamentary democracy when he was stifled by Parliament's powers under a minority government. If we don't do something about this (also in the real world) we are saying that our devotion to Canadian democracy is hardly any greater than that of the harpercons.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[Rufus Polson]

This conversation looks like one I don't want to get into; I haven't read through all the posts actually, just the initial few. But I do have an opinion of sorts, so I fear I'm going to do a drive-by here.

Basically, my opinion is that Thwap is correct that the federal Conservatives have a deep contempt for democracy and undermine it whenever they get the chance, and a deep contempt for the rule of law where it applies to them and will do anything they think they can get away with to accomplish their objectives, no matter what laws it breaks. Indeed, I think there is an element of Con thinking which says that it's better if they can erode legal protections and checks on their actions because that widens their scope to act in the future. In short, if someone handed Stephen Harper the opportunity, risk free, to mount a successful fascist coup, he would take it in a second, not just happy to be more firmly in charge, but actually happy to have gotten rid of a form of government he basically thinks just gets in the way of his chosen constituency of the rich and powerful.

So I think ideally for some of the shit they've pulled, lots of the Harpercons should be charged with serious crimes and put in jail, and failing that ideally the Canadian public should be fully informed of just what they're dealing with and these bastards should become pariahs who can't get service in a coffee shop, much less get elected.

However, I disagree with Thwap that this makes the Harper government illegitimate, as Canadian governments go. The fact is they haven't been charged or put in jail, and as much of the electorate voted for the scum as vote for most Canadian majority governments. They have as much of a mandate as Chretien did. So they're the government, because many of the Canadian people are ill-informed by a biased press, and many more are idiots, and quite a few are both. But whaddayagonnado? I don't believe in democracy because I think people always make the best decisions, I believe in democracy because I think the governed have the right to decide who governs them. They did and they decided on criminal scumbuckets who are out to get them. Sucks, but there it is. Sure, we need proportional representation, but that didn't just happen today.

Now there is a general argument to be made that the Canadian political system, when you take into account the ownership structure of the media and its "manufacturing consent" way of operating, the role of money in elections despite the public funding model which the Cons are now dismantling anyway, and various other pressures, distortions, and sources of undemocraticness, isn't very goddamn democratic (and probably never has been although it may have been better at times than it is right now). But that is basically a separate issue from the specific election to power of these particular vile excrescences.

[thwap]

Rufus,

While I appreciate you might not have the time to enter into this as much as you think would be needed to do it justice, I'll tell you why I disagree with you.

First of all, in any other time, I wouldn't find a government elected by ignorance to be "illegitimate."

It is the combination of ignorance and anti-democratic values and behaviour that adds up to a government that cannot command my respect or obedience.

But, more importantly, what sort of message does it send to the power-mad that we will acquiesce in this? "Go ahead. Spit on our democracy! Mock it! Mock us! Take away what little power we have to control you! We'll try again in four or five years. And if you win again, by hook or by crook (US-Americans acquiesce to stolen elections, why shouldn't we?) we'll resign ourselves to more of the same. Those are the rules."

The rules?

What rules?

What are these rules everyone is speaking of?

The rule that the government has to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons?

The rule that a summons from Parliament can't be disobeyed?

The rule that the people's representatives have the right to know what the government is doing?

Election finance rules?

Rules against forging documents or lying to committees?

No. All those rules have been broken. This is intolerable.

I have respect for democratic government. I do not have any respect for the pretensions of stephen harper to be the government.

[ETA: We're all acting like the woman in Holy Grail who has been found (by a bunch of dullards and frauds) to weigh as much as a duck and therefore be a witch, who, as she is being led off to be burned at the stake, shrugs and says "It's a fair cop."]
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[thwap]

What i'm really talking about here is the dangerous precedent of submitting to despotic behaviour.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[TS.]

I'm in a similar boat to Rufus but I suppose I see things this way: the people have the right to make the wrong decision. I strenuously disagree with the decision that was adopted, but in a democracy the ignorant have the same rights as the informed, and until we can change the electoral system, we have to work within it. Accepting a Conservative government now is the price of Conservative voters accepting a potential NDP government four years from now.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[thwap]

TS,

You're missing my point entirely.

I'm not talking about having to accept policies I don't agree with.

I, and the majority of Canadians, have disagreed with the war in Afghanistan, but you haven't heard me calling for the downfall of the governments that have imposed that policy on us.

This isn't about not liking the electoral results of stupid people voting.

This is about a government asking me to respect its authority when it routinely denied the authority of the system itself.

This is about voters who cheered on despotic assaults on democracy expecting me to respect their anti-democratic choice.

I got the point that magoo was trying to make about ideological consistency and anarchists accepting welfare payments.

But it sets a very dangerous precedent if we meekly accept that a guy who treated democracy and Parliament as badly as harper has, gets to be PM because of the votes of people who don't respect our democratic system any more than he does. Which is to say, not at all.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[TS.]

I'm not saying that we have to meekly accept Harper. By all means, let's protest the decisions his government makes. But the fact remains that plurality of people voted for Conservatives and in such a way that they elected a majority government.

Do I think that was a stupid decision? Yes. Do I think it was a wrong decision? Yes. Do I think the people have a right to make a stupid and wrong decision? Yes.

You say that this is about the fact that a government was elected that has contempt for democratic processes. I don't disagree with that characterization of the Harper regime. But the people as a collective have the right to elect who they see fit. That we disagree, and think that they have elected an anti-democratic government does not per se give us the right to deny the legitimacy of the elected government. Asserting that is, itself anti-democratic. Nietzsche had it right (something I don't say often) when he wrote: "he who fights monsters might take care lest he become a monster. And if you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." Opposing an anti-democratic government does not give us leave to ourselves behave in an undemocratic fashion.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[thwap]

Well, that explains your opposition to DePape's actions.

But for me, a line in the sand has been crossed.

If we, the majority, say "It is perfectly fine to reward politicians who preside over war crimes, and serial abuses of Parliament's powers and rights. The election of anti-democratic, criminal regimes is an acceptable part of the political process." ... then I say that that sets a terrible precedent.

Furthermore, as citizens in a democracy, I believe we have an obligation to defend our democracy, not tolerate its abuse.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[al-Qa'bong]

Does anyone actually know any "anarchist on welfare?"

Such a person, if he or she really exists, would be similar to a "vegetarian" who eats fish and chicken.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[thwap]

I'm pretty oblivious to stuff happening around me in real life, but have you been away for a long time al-Qa'bong?

And I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be hard to find an anarchist collecting welfare. They'd probably justify it by saying that the cash economy makes it unavoidable. Perhaps they think they're sticking it to the man. It certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[thwap]

Wasn't it the case that all the stuff about respecting the decision of the electorate and etc., ... didn't harper sorta violate everything you're saying we should respect.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[TS.]

[thwap]

Why do people insist that I'm calling the election procedures into question?

I think I've even said that the election was free and fair so far as our system of running them goes.

On top of the assertion that my whole argument is based on something like:

"Hey! A bunch of people I disagree with elected a government that I don't like! Let's have a revolution."

Let me repeat myself:

We do not have to respect the authority of a PM who doesn't respect that authority of Parliament.

When he had a minority, harper was bound to certain rules and principles, and he violated them again and again.

Again I ask: If harper did not respect the power of Parliament when he was bound by the constitutional limitations of a minority government, is it not fair that by his actions, he has released us from the obligation to respect his power as the leader of a majority government?

A guy borrows $5 off of you. On the day of repayment, he says "Screw you mother-fucker!!!!" and runs laughing down the street. Months later, desperate, you borrow $5 off of him. On repayment day, he shows up at your door and self-righteously demands his money and makes all sorts of sanctimonious noises about your solemn obligations.

That's where we're at now.

Let me repeat myself about the people who elected harper:

First, let's re-establish the demonstrated fact that harper did not respect the rules when he had a minority. He abused our system of government.

he is probably a war criminal and he broke the rules so as to avoid accountability to Parliament. he ordered his staff not to comply with summonses from Parliamentary committees.

Some people voted for him because they like that he broke the rules and refused to recognize our constitutional rights.

Some people voted for him because they don't have a clue about what he did. They have failed to notice or grasp the significance of his unconstitutional behaviour.

I am not saying: "We don't have to recognize this government because I don't like it and I think his voters were stupid assholes."

I am saying: "Why are we bound to tolerate a despot because he won the votes of people who either like despotism or were unaware of what they were doing?"

Please note: The crucial factoid here is harper's despotism, NOT the fact that I don't like him or his supporters.

harper is a despot. This is not my opinion. He demonstrated it time and time again in his deliberate rejections of the rights of Parliament.

Again I ask: Do people who happily vote for a despot deserve our respect? Do we have to acquiesce to despotism because a strategically placed minority like despotism?

Do we have to tolerate despotism because of the ignorance of the rest of his supporters?

What long-term damage to the integrity of Canadian democracy will we be doing by tolerating this victory for despotism?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[TS.]

Using a term like despotism to apply to Harper's government debases the term. There is a qualitative difference between refusal to recognize the rights of Parliament and a despotism. We can see despotism in action in Syria, Bahrain and Libya.

You also seem to think that there are no checks on the power of the Prime Minister. The courts remain a check. While the Harper government paid lip service to the Khadr decision, that was easy to do because the government wasn't ordered to do anything by the Supreme Court. When the courts have issued decisions ordering the government to do something, it has complied after exhausting its appeals.

[thwap]

TS,

Thank you for debating with what I actually wrote.

You're correct about my misuse of the term Despot. I thought it meant someone who abuses their power and exercises arbitrary, unaccountable government. There is such a word, but apparently it isn't "despot" or "autocrat."

[TS.]

[thwap]

Re: Your last bit - about war for peace. ... You support NATO in Libya.

tee-hee.

off in a hurry. don't take it the wrong way.

more serious stuff later.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[TS.]

Just on the NATO in Libya bit, I would suggest there is a difference between fighting a war in the name of peace, and what is going on in Libya, but obviously that isn't something we can agree on, and is probably better discussed in the other thread.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[al-Qa'bong]

[Rufus Polson]

[Slumberjack]

[bshmr]

The difference between being governed and owned?

THURSDAY; Quote of the Day; July 7, 2011

'Meanwhile the so-called recovery isn't reaching beyond the rich. Out of all the economic growth corporations have seen since the nominal recovery began in 2009, only 1 percent has gone to wages -- 88 percent went to corporate profits, according to this Northwestern University study. And CEO pay jumped 23 percent in 2010. We are not broke; we are a wealthy country. Poverty afflicts our political culture. President Obama has a very hard road ahead. If he rewards hostage takers, it's hard to imagine where they'll stop.'

Columnist Joan Walsh; Salon; July 5, 2011 http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/07/05/ec...

[thwap]

I was just looking at a pdf of US incarceration rates. They exploded in the 1980s with the coming of the Reagan revolution and its benighted war on drugs.

If harper intends to criminalize dissent to fill his prisons, will we still acquiesce to his thuggery?

link
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[The Evil Twin]

[thwap]

And when these governments break their own rules, ... we tell 'em "You just wait until the next election!" ... as if they care.

TS s now making a strong case that I mean to return to, but at a later date. have a 3-d world deadline and I want to "Fisk" Rosie DiManno's shitty attempt to validate the Afghan war, so ... I'll wait.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[TS.]

[Senor Magoo]

[thwap]

No. I don't mean the guy who fire-bombed the empty building to make some sort of statement against perhaps the greatest self-inflicted threat against the human race.

[FWIW - I think it's more fuck-witted to condemn him rather than the entities that are driving us head-long into oblivion.]

I'm talking about the police showing up at anarchist book-fairs and spying on them for being "hate-groups."

I'm talking about the deliberate brutalization of all protesters following the piddling acts of vandalism of a few, or by the acts of paid police provocateurs.

I'm talking about the widening definition of the term "terrorism" so that giving money to greenpeace will soon become giving material support to terrorism.

I'm talking about the wholesale internet spying and the torturing of dissidents.

Systematic police harassment.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[Senor Magoo]

[thwap]

yeah. the olympics. why do i even waste my fucking time?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[Senor Magoo]

The Oilsands then?

[thwap]

no. the olympics. bye.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[Senor Magoo]

Gee, Thwap, don't leave without sharing the real reason for his protest! If nothing else, I'm sure he'd like to know.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[thwap]

Question:

Who voted for harper and what do you think their opinions were with regards to his being in contempt of Parliament, his denial of legislative oversight, his repeated abuse of prorogation, his endorsement of doctoring official memos and lying to Parliament about it?
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!