There is a desert story of a rattlesnake and a fox at a river. The fox was down to the river to get a drink when the rattlesnake approached the fox and said “the current is strong in the river and I must cross the river, will you carry me on your back and take me across the river”. The fox said “if I let you close enough to me you will bite me”. The snake promised that he had to get to the other side of the river, so promised not to bite the fox if it did the good deed. With some uneasy, the fox consented and the snake crawled on the fox’ back. The fox struggled against the current and got the rattlesnake across the river, but as the rattlesnake was crawling off to dry ground the snake turned and bit the fox. The fox recoiled in fear and said “you promised me that if I took you across the river you would not bite me”. The snake replied “ don’t blame me for that, when you took me on your back you knew who I was”. (end of tale)
The fox should not have trusted the snake because it knew the nature of the rattlesnake, it would always act out the natural ways of its character. Prime Minister cannot shake the course that he has laid many years ago. The question is one of character
Now we have Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin in deep water. I am not in any way defending them, if they have troubles they did bring it onto themselves inasmuch as they both claimed travel expenses for traveling to places that they were not living. What I am looking at is that they were enticed out onto the water by the Prime Minister by his Senate appointment. Neither of them were political hacks that the Prime Minister owed something to, they are also not even nearly qualified to be sober second thought kinda people that would be deserving of the Senate job. These two were picked and groomed to be campaigners of the Conservative Party.
Canadians will have to decide if they agree with our PM bastardizing our system of Democracy so much so that he is willing to warp it out of shape for his own promotion and aggrandizement. Should our tax paying dollars be going toward paying to keep this distorter of Democracy in power. Duffy and Wallin were hired as paid cheerleaders to get Harper his majority. But now that Duffy and Wallin are in trouble the spotlight they have become a liability to Harper’s plans. And in the natural state of Harper, he has taken personal control to remove the two from the Senate by pushing the Senate debate from within his Caucus. This personal touch only makes us wonder how far back the case was being handled by the Prime Minister himself; as far back to the issuing of cheques?
And the question arises, what other distortions of our Democracy is our Prime Minister up to and capable of? A demonstration of his sneakiness is the trade deals with both the EU and the Chinese that have been going on for years in secret? When elections have been fought on past trade deals, Harper has not even given the Canadian voters the respect of even mentioning these deals in the last 2 elections. When I was young, and many years ago, I was taught that our Democracy was built on having elections where the various parties were to tell the Canadian people what they stood for and what they planned to do for us and for Canada, and then Canadians could decided for themselves whose vision they would vote for. It was critical to give us the facts before we went into the voters’ booth. If we are not extended the courtesy or the right today, perhaps the vital democratic principle died the same time as Parties lost vision.
Does Harper have more plans to take more powers? Case in point, in the National Post, in an article written by Kathryn Blaze Carlson, she writes “Senator Bert Brown, who was elected in Alberta before Mr. Harper appointed him in 2007, said the Prime Minister would consider asking Parliament and the provinces for a constitutionally entrenched mechanism that would prevent gridlock or even a Senate-sparked government shutdown”. Here is just another example of where Harper is streamlining the system for his plans to eliminate descent from his plans. But descent is a healthy part of Democracy, be it the chatter of a discontented public, all the way to the check and balance of an effective Senate with the powers to control a tyrant.
It can be wondered if the attack on Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau is a broader plan to destroy the credibility of the Senate (this would mean that those of his Caucus in the Senate who are struggling to get rid of the offending three, would also be undermining their own appointments). Undermining the Senate would pave the way to the abolition of the Senate, and to streamline any slowdown or opposition to his planned Legislation. This would remove a check to Harper’s power.
If true, our next questions are, was the plan hatched at the time of the 3 getting into trouble or was the plan conceived before the recruitment of the three? If the plan was conceived at the time the three got into trouble then the PM is an opportunist. But if the plan was concocted before the three were recruited it means that Harper is both brilliantly dangerous and capable of anything, and needs to be removed from office as soon as possible.
The fact that Duffy and Wallin are in trouble on the water is their fault; they should have known who was enticing them out into the water. They knew Harper to be callus, controlling and apt to make anyone an enemy if they get out of line. Likewise, Canadians as well cannot fault the Prime Minister for his sneakiness and the distortions of Democracy. We like Duffy and Wallin were incised out on the water and we gave the PM his ride. We were already warned of the character of Stephan Harper before he became PM, and before he even took the helm of the new Conservative Party. Didn’t Joe Clark warn Canadians about Stephen Harper? In an interview with CBC Joe Clark (April 27,2004) said of Harper, “”I do think it would be dangerous to have a leader with the kind of mentality Mr. Harper has,” to counter Harper’s growing power he then advised Canadians “ in the next election, Canadians should not vote for parties but for the best candidate in their constituency”.
If we are bitten once shame on Harper, but if we allow him to bite again shame on us. The negotiations of trade deal was Harper’s first bite, so if we allow him to continue in his path of the decline in Canada’s Democracy is our fault, shame on us.
Clark’s interview with CBC in 2004
Stephan Harper’s Record of Denying Democracy
Stephan Harper – Absolute Power