Beware
A virus has infected my Hotmail account – first time that’s happened in a decade of using it.
My apologies to all who have been bugged by this.
“Tim Hudak forced an unnecessary election seven weeks after the last one.”
It’s a wordy slogan, to be sure, but we’d get a comfortable majority with it. And, unless I’m wrong, Ms. Horwath would be leader of the Opposition. Not Mr. Hudak.
His exchange a short while ago with reporters, which was something to see:
Reporter: You’d vote against it as it stands right now, if there’s no amendment you’d vote against it as a caucus?
Hudak: That’s right.
…
Reporter: Tim, make it clear, if you vote down a Throne Speech, does that trigger an election? Make it clear to the voters.
Hudak: Well you know what? It depends on the other parties and how they vote…But you’re asking me, you know, can I support…
Reporter: I’m not asking you if you support it. I know you don’t support it. But, if you vote down a Throne Speech, does that automatically trigger an election?
Hudak: It depends on how the other parties vote…But you know, you’re asking a very simple question…
…
Reporter: Tim, technically if the NDP votes against this Throne Speech and so does your caucus, are you bringing down the government? Is it a confidence vote? I mean…
Hudak: You know what? [Inaudible.]
…
Reporter: If you vote against the throne speech, the government has the chance to fall. Is that a chance you are willing to take right now?
Hudak: You know what, what, it’s up to Dalton McGuinty to respond to us…
Reporter: No, it’s up to you, you’re the one voting against it.
Hudak: You know, I told you…
Reporter: You don’t need to take that chance right now?
Hudak: I told you where our votes are parked.
Good thing no one suggested the federal Libs pursue this
In today’s Sun: I Iggy, populist
Last week, Michael Ignatieff was heard from again.
Now that he has returned to the cloistered corridors of academe, we should be getting used to the publication of his occasional essays, one supposes. But it’s still odd — unnerving, even — to turn on one’s computer, and see an Ignatieff think piece flash across the screen. It’s weird.
Ex-party leaders generally follow a well-worn path, you see: They retire to a generous pension, they hang out at a law firm, they get paid scads of money to give speeches which are neither controversial nor newsworthy, and then they write their memoirs. They don’t look like they have anything to prove because, well, they don’t.
Former Liberal Party leader Ignatieff is a notable exception. Since leaving public life — and since taking up a fellowship at the University of Toronto’s Massey College, where he teaches political science — Ignatieff has published essays about politics, and he has maintained contact with many of his supporters from his first run at the Liberal leadership, in 2006.
Ottawa tomorrow
…to speak to a poli sci class at my alma mater.
Maybe I’ll pop by the Hill later and frighten some people.
Dion on the way ahead
It’s to Dion’s credit that he has acknowledged the mistake he made, and which his successor made.
Problem: Stephen Harper knew we’d come to this conclusion. And he changed the election financing laws to ensure we couldn’t do anything about it.
Checkmate.
Leslie Noble on the Hudak campaign
Leslie is one of the smartest political operators in this country. She is also someone not to be trifled with.
That’s why her comments in today’s big Ontario Newswatch exclusive are a real eye-opener:
Ms. Noble denied having any significant role in the campaign.
Will Tea Party Tim Hudak make it through his leadership review? I sure hope so. But, increasingly, I am wondering if he will.
Now, with the leg being back, at what time today will Timmy repeat his intention to defeat the government? Guesses, anyone? Let’s have a contest!
Section 13
As predicted, when Harper’s gang finally achieved their majority, they’d go after section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. They didn’t campaign on a pledge to do that – it was never mentioned, as I recall – but they’re doing it. In fact, before 2011, their position was always to defend the section.
Why is it a mistake? Two reasons:
- We are now going to see a dramatic increase in the number of hate expression cases where the Criminal Code is involved. The Human Rights Act, which is non-criminal, is a much better route than the Code, which is.
- If skittish Attorneys-General decline to grant permission for Code prosecutions, as I expect they will, the affected communities will grow frustrated (as happened in Citroen v. Zundel) and, in some cases, seek justice outside the judicial system.
Offensive expression is offensive – but it isn’t always criminal. The idiots in the Harper government have now created an environment where targets of hateful expression will be obliged to use the criminal law to defend themselves from hate.
I hope the Minister of Justice has the budget to hire many, many more prosecutors. He’ll need them.
That’s that
Youngest Son: Daddy, will you be sad if I want to go to [eldest son’s] hockey game, not the Santa Claus parade?
Me, totally lying: No, of course not, buddy. If that’s what you want to do, we’ll do that.
[The author checks himself in for treatment of depression.]
In today’s Sun: what would Confucius say about Stephen Harper?
“The superior man understands what is right,” Confucius observed some 500 years before the birth of Christ, “the inferior man understands what will sell.”
And what “sold,” up until 2009 or so, was the Conservative leader’s undisguised contempt for China and its government.