09.22.2019 09:39 AM

And vote!

For all of you who have written to me, depressed and dispirited about the choices in this awful election, don’t forget we have amazing, decent, courageous and principled people like Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. Don’t give up hope. Be independent.



27 Comments

  1. Bill says:

    Well, as much as I like both of these ladies and their hutzpah and principle, I think it’s time they “spoke their truth” on Trudeau and the SNC Lavalin affair – regardless of Trudeau’s GAG on them. Trudeau thought is was OK for him to speak and not them. While they’re at it, they should give us the ALL the details on Gerald Butt’s, and the PMO. The so called oath was never intended to prevent possible criminal behaviour of the prime minister to go unchallenged. Citizens have a duty to report crime – period. It’s no different than the code of silence within criminal gangs and the neighbourhood where they live. Silence only perpetuates and condones criminality.

    I say vote for both of them if it closes the liberal candidate out, but not if the conservative candidate is favoured to win the seat. Trudeau and the liberals do not deserve a second mandate.

    Trudeau – Not As Advertised.

    • Bill,

      As explained before, you can’t do that: Philpott is a CPSO member while JWR may at some point seek re-admittance to either the BC or Ontario bars. You simply can’t violate cabinet confidence (like SCP or PC) without it having very serious repercussions as regards your status with the provincial regulating authority.

      • Bill says:

        Ronald,

        I think (correct me if I’m wrong) Warren himself and other lawyers and scholars said Trudeau eroded/broke cabinet confidence when he spoke out with his many reincarnations of his story, therefore opening it up to all. And what bigger implication is electing a possibly criminals to form government or at the least as MP’s. Are we a banana republic or do we still have rule of law in Canada? Sometimes you have to do the right thing for “God and Country” as they say!

        • Bill says:

          Ronald,
          Mulroney, Martin and Harper all waved full cabinet confidence. Trudeau has blocked the RCMP from proceeding with a criminal investigation into SNC as well as the Ethics Commissioner by not providing waiver. Stonewalled and closed down the Ethics Committee – what does Trudeau have to hide that is so Nuclear? This is NOT state secrets, this is a cover up to save Trudeau’s skin from possible criminal charges. Banana Republic, No?

        • Bill,

          Forgive me for the following MEGO moment: Administrative Law is not Constitutional Law, and vice- versa. That’s the key legal distinction in this whole affair. Whoever advised, I’ll say this government, on AL is really, really, really good.

  2. Joseph says:

    Or they could vote for a party other than the LPOC.

  3. Mark D says:

    Warren, I will apologize in advance if this puts you on the spot…

    I don’t know if you are in a position to discuss Jagmeet Singh’s response to our prime minister’s brown face, or if you are comfortable doing so, but I think a number of your readers (myself included) would be interested in your take.

    Personally, I have been extremely impressed by the maturity with which Singh has responded to this situation. Up until this point I had not been impressed by his leadership or by the NDP campaign. But his appeal to minorities not to give up on Canada struck the right nerve with me.

  4. Max says:

    Mark D, why would you be interested in Warren’s take on this specific thing. Can you not form your own “take” on it. It’s pretty clear, and it’s been covered extensively by all major news outlets in various formats and platforms. The overwhelming consensus is that Singh was sincere, believable, struck the right tone, did not attempt to score political points, etc. etc. You need/want more? Time to move on. The question is, will YOU be voting Liberal?

  5. Fred from BC says:

    “Singh was sincere, believable, struck the right tone, did not attempt to score political points, etc. ”

    That may be, but even if I were inclined to vote NDP he would have lost me when he called Andrew Scheer’s 2005 speech opposing gay marriage “disgusting”. What other religions does Mr. Singh find as “disgusting” as Christianity, I wonder?

    • Fred,

      That’s a bit of a stretch: Christians — not to mention everyone else in this society are divided on same-sex-marriage. Just because Singh condemns Scheer’s then views does not mean that his condemnation goes beyond Scheer’s comments in that particular time frame and context.

      • Fred from BC says:

        “Just because Singh condemns Scheer’s then views ”

        Condemnation is one thing, Ronald…calling those views “disgusting” is quite another.

        Scheer at that time felt exactly the same way I did (and still do today): let them have ‘civil unions’ instead like all those European countries did at the time. Let them have the EXACT SAME THING with a different name. It’s called ‘compromise’, and it’s the solution that normal, reasonable people might formulate when called upon to make changes in society that could upset or insult millions of people of various faiths.

        • What is it about thier love that makes you upset or insulated?

          • Fred from BC says:

            “What is it about thier love that makes you upset or insulated?”

            Nothing, since I’m a life-long atheist. I’m talking about avoiding deliberately upsetting people who *do* have a religious belief that marriage is sacred.

            Believe it or not, Darwin, not everyone is as selfish and self-centered as your typical NDP supporter; many people actually care about the opinions and well being of others even though they don’t share the same beliefs (I know…shocking, right?).

          • It depends of the people. If the people using religion to justify thier homophobia, then I don’t mind upsetting them.

            If people think thier love is a sacred as any others, then I don’t want to upset them by declairing it “seperate, but equal”.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Fred,

          With respect, that’s like trying to turn already scrambled eggs back into unscrambled. Not going to happen, even under Scheer.

          • Fred from BC says:

            “With respect, that’s like trying to turn already scrambled eggs back into unscrambled. Not going to happen, even under Scheer.”

            Oh, absolutely. I’m just saying, that’s what *should* have happened…and would have, if our politicians hadn’t been so cowardly and kicked it back to the courts to decide (same as they’ve done with abortion, really).

  6. Max says:

    Looks like Fred is still with Justin. Okey dokey.

  7. Peter says:

    amazing, decent, courageous and principled people

    Not too many though. Philpott and W-R certainly count and Singh has finally emerged from hibernation to inspire us all. There are some very impressive characters on the Con front benches, especially the women, and I wish Scheer would make more of his team. Of course the Libs have some good people, but these days they all look like piggies at the trough by defending the indefensible over JT. May and the Greens are much too erratic to qualify. What in the world possessed them to come out for legalizing all drugs? Like there is a big demand across the land for a safe supply of heroin and meth? I already know of one vote they’ve lost over that little gratuitous bombshell.

    Almost all of them are locked in a world of bright young handlers, base-feeding, media sound bites, paranoia about polls and gaffes, etc. Meanwhile, like Diogenes, a whole nation craves honest, intelligent men and women of principle and sobriety who can transcend their petty little worlds and guide the ship of state through rocky shoals. Very depressing.

    • Both the NDP and the Green party has a policy to decriminalize possession of small amounts of drugs (not legalize). It was Singh’s main policy plank that distinguished him during the NDP leadership race. It is modeled after the success of Portugal in encouraging treatment over punishment for drug users.

      • Peter says:

        May’s announcement said nothing about “small amounts. But I get that there is a case to be made for a therapeutic approach as opposed to a criminal one. I’m torn myself about it. But it’s far from a straightforward question and I was really questioning her political savvy in making such a simplistic rallying cry during an election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*