A few thoughts on Prime Minister Harper's speech tonight

This is a comment in response to a comment by "CH" in the previous post, but I thought it might be worthwhile putting up something on tonight's speech by the Prime Minister, though I found it disappointing. I don't have time right now to write anything much else, so here's my comment in the previous post if anyone wants to join a new thread.
-------------

CH,

There is a further point that occurs to me after watching Harper's speech tonight, which I thought was inadequate. He really had nothing to say, giving us no serious sense of how he is going to deal with this crisis, what he thinks is the right thing for him to do, what he would offer to negotiate with the other parties or parts thereof. It strikes me that he must either have some very good reason for being cagey that I can't think of, or he just doesn't have a lot of ideas about how to re-present Canada's national interest in ways that can point towards new pacts that can lead us out of this crisis. Stephane Dion also had little creative to say, besides repeating his election campaign rhetoric.

So, I see this as signs of a bigger crisis in the field of representations, a lack of representations that could set in flow a new and freer political exchange in this country, thus deferring the present impasse in our political culture.

This kind of crisis no doubt has many proximate causes but a lot of them are to do with too much top-down politics and not enough room in the political arenas for creative interactions among ordinary Canadians. We need more space for political entrepreneurs. What I saw tonight from Harper and Dion were men who look as if they are frozen in ice. And ultimately, that is somewhat related to how our political parties are run and financed. The CPC may be more skilled at grassroots organizing and fundraising than the others, though the NDP uses the unions to put together pretty impressive electoral machines in certain ridings, but Harper himself is clearly too much of an autocrat who is just too insecure about others' power plays to negotiate effectively in a minority government. Canada is a huge problem, and it is not surprising that we don't have many skilled at representing a common national interest. But that is what we have to work towards, or give up. And making parties more dependent on grass roots would be part of that.

Prime Minister Stephane Dion?

The thought of Stephane Dion as Prime Minister will not appeal to most Canadians, including I dare say thinking members of the Liberal Party of Canada (a party that is risking its future on a brazen desire for immediate power, it seems to me), or possibly even members of the NDP (who may be concerned with the alternative possibility that they are helping the Liberals escape disintegration as a party by giving them access to power).

Not only Dion, but his confederates in the new Parliamentary alliance - Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton - are, to my mind, some of the least appealing political leaders in Canadian history. Furthermore, the issue on which these three propose to overthrow the government - its failure to spend immediately $30 billion (about $1000 for each Canadian) as an emergency "stimulus" package - is to my mind an entirely flimsy issue on which to stand and provoke a potential constitutional crisis. It is also not the real issue that has provoked this crisis. What's more, I think these three generally stand for an objectionable, anti-freedom, pro-nanny state, politics.

However, there is a more important consideration at stake than one's attitudes towards these three. We should all give some time to consider what courses of action we must grudgingly support in the name of upholding the integrity of our Constitution.

There are, for the moment, at stake two basic Constitutional principles essential for our system of responsible Parliamentary government: 1) the principle that the government must have the confidence of the House of Commons; and 2) that, unless circumstances are dire, the Governor General should not be put in a position where she has to deny the request of her duly-established Ministers, and thus make a decision that is likely to be seen, or later interpreted, as politicizing her office, and not reflecting her properly disinterested concern for the integrity of our Constitution and nation.

If the House of Commons votes non-confidence in the present government, as now seems likely, Stephen Harper should very probably bite the bullet and resign from office. If he were to request that the Governor General dissolve Parliament and call an election, he would likely be asking the Governor General to put the integrity of her office at risk, unless he can make a convincing case that the present coalition of Liberals-Bloc Quebecois-NDP is inherently unstable and, perhaps because it includes separatists, a profound danger to the country.

If Harper does choose to make that case, it would seem to me that the Governor General would be ill-advised to refuse his request for a dissolution. The principle that a Governor General should only refuse the advice of her Ministers in the most necessary and rare circumstances would be damaged, and her office politicized. It would be better to allow the voters to decide whether they had any sympathy for a Prime Minister who refused to resign when he lost the support of the House of Commons and who put the Governor General on the spot. The voters would have to pass judgment on what both sides in this Parliamentary war over power are doing.

To support this argument, allow me to quote from the late great constitutional authority, J.R. Mallory:

The circumstances in which the Governor General may hesitate to grant a dissolution will only arise when a Prime Minister who has been defeated in the House of Commons - or who anticipates defeat - may decide to ask for a dissolution instead of submitting his resignation. This he might do if he anticipates, as Mackenzie King did in 1926, that the party situation in the House is such that the leader of the opposition cannot form a government [or, as Mallory argues in a footnote, there is reason to believe that the opposition could not sustain a government for any period of time, given the antipathies of those involved in any new coalition government].
[...]
The result of Lord Byng's miscalculation [in 1926] of the political situation was that both his position and his motives were misunderstood. The Governor General had felt he was performing his constitutional duty in trying to avoid, under the usual party circumstances which then prevailed, a second general election within a year.
[...]
Lord Byng's defence of his position rested, as he explained to the King, on "these salient features":

A Governor-General has the absolute right of granting or refusing a dissolution. The refusal is a very dangerous decision. It embodies the rejection of the advice of an accredited Minister, which is the bed-rock of constitutional government. Therefore nine times out of ten a Governor-General should take his Prime Minister's advice on this as on other matters. But if the advice offered is considered by the Governor-General to be wrong and unfair, and not for the welfare of the people, it behoves him to act in what he considers the best interests of the country.

Lord Byng's statement of his constitutional position is clearly literally correct. But he overstated it. The occasions on which a Governor General may consider disregarding the advice of his constitutional advisers are much rarer than one in ten; they are very infrequent indeed. They do exist, but they are so rare as to elude precise formulation, and at best have a pragmatic sanction. The Governor General can employ his discretionary powers only in those circumstances where he can get away with it, and where the alternative is something close to constitutional chaos. On that basis Lord Byng was mistaken, though not unconstitutional.

Every unsuccessful use of power is an adverse precedent. While it is impossible to agree with those who say that the 1926 affair disposed forever of the Governor General's supposed discretion in granting a dissolution, it is clear that the future discretion of a Canadian Governor General has been somewhat narrowed.
[...]
there was speculation in the press in 1957 that Mr. Diefenbaker upon taking office might demand another election at once to break the stalemate. As it happened he revealed no such intention, but even if he had sought a dissolution in the first weeks of the Twenty-third Parliament, he might have placed the Governor General in an awkward position had the Liberals been anxious to take office again. In such a case the Governor General would clearly have been entitled to refuse Mr. Diefenbaker's request if it appeared that Mr. St. Laurent was capable of carrying on without another general election.
J.R. Mallory, The Structure of Canadian Government (Gage: 1984), 53-57.

Mallory's last-mentioned scenario might seem to apply to the present crisis. However, it is the Conservatives who formed the last government and who increased their numbers in the House of Commons in the last election. The House has already met and passed the Throne Speech. This, along with the fact that Stephane Dion is a lame-duck leader who proposes to rule a coalition of three parties, including separatists, might give Stephen Harper a case to make an argument that the voters need first to be asked to give their support to the newly-proposed coalition. However, in doing so, he would risk politicizing the Governor General's office. And he should only request a dissolution if, in his best conscience, and once he has thought the matter over with whatever serenity this moment will allow, he truly believes the proposed coalition is unworkable and a profound danger to the country. It would then be up to the voters to judge Harper's (good) conscience in comparison with those of the other three party leaders.

Harper to call election on Sunday; but do we have the freedom to call the NDP and Liberals Islamist-loving fascists?

For those looking for hope that they might find some motivation to fight for the Conservatives under Harper, the man who has had nothing public to say about the "human rights" commission scandal, at least not since he became Prime Minister (he once called the commissions "totalitarian" but now he lives with them), Deborah G. lights a candle:Deborah Gyapong: YES on QUESTION 10 !!!!!!!

Meanwhile, the NDP is running Islamists, which is exactly what their behaviour and supporters of the last few years have led us to expect.

Of course, I have still to hear Stephane Dion publicly denounce those who helped elect him Liberal Party leader with the "Bob Rae's wife is a Jew" slogan.

Don't miss Kathy Shaidle on Appeasing Canada's Islamists.

Canadian politics: increasingly polarized by antisemitism

Charles sent me this link yesterday: CCD applauds Harper government for withdrawal of support for UN 'anti-racism' conference

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, 23 January, 2008

Ottawa, Canada - The Stephen Harper government has withdrawn its support for a UN anti-racism conference scheduled to take place next year in South Africa, according to a media release today from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, said today that the conference, like its predecessor in 2001, "has gone completely off the rails... Canada is interested in combating racism, not promoting it. We'll attend any conference that is opposed to racism and intolerance, not those that actually promote racism and intolerance".

"Canadians are shocked when they hear the clear and simple expression of reality by their leaders," said Alastair Gordon, president of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD). "We are used to hearing double-speak from our politicians -- fantasies that are at odds with the reality that most Canadians see and the values that they hold."

The last UN anti-racism conference held in Durban in 2001 degenerated into a hate-fest of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel vitriol, while the most egregious human rights violators escaped criticism. The Toronto Star today reported that "all of the non-governmental organizations invited to the first conference have been invited back to the second, including those that were at the 'forefront of the hatred', some of which posted pro-Hitler posters at the 2001 gathering."

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is in charge of planning for the conference, an entity that has directed 93% of its resolutions on human rights violations at just one nation - Israel. Iran is a member of the organizing committee, despite its government's open call to wipe the Jewish homeland off the face of the earth.

"The Stephen Harper government has again demonstrated that Canada can project power as a moral leader in international affairs," added Gordon. "A nation does not need a massive military to provide the moral leadership and clarity that denies legitimacy to Orwellian UN agencies that hijack the language of human rights to promote Jew-hatred.

"Stephen Harper has signaled that Canada will act on principle, regardless of UN consensus. This is the stuff of global leadership."

This news drew a reply from Khaled Mouammar, Canadian Arab Federation National President, as noted by Kate at Small Dead Animals. Mouammar states:

Canada's outright rejection of the [UN anti-racism] conference sends a clear message to the Canadian public that the current government is disinterested in promoting human rights and anti-racism. The very fact that Israel was "attacked" at the previous conference indicates that the international community and human rights organizations are in agreement that the occupation of Arab lands, the mistreatment and killing of Palestinians, and the denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return is in violation of international law and will be condemned and no longer accepted.

[...]

"We would also like to remind Jason Kenney that he is a Minister of the Canadian government, not the racist Israeli government; still, CAF is not surprised with Minister Kenney's position given his outright contempt for the Arab and Muslim communities in Canada and his condoning of Islamophobia. This is the same man who attacked a Muslim organization for lodging a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Maclean's Magazine for publishing an inflammatory and bigoted article, and who slandered Canadian NGO's at an OSCE Conference in front of the international community"

Kate then goes on to note that Mouammar gained notoriety by circulating a flyer at the last leadership convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, denouncing leading leadership candidate, Bob Rae, for his Jewish connections. As we reported, there was apparently a campaign of slander at the convention, directed at the fact that Bob Rae's wife is Jewish and an official with the Canadian Jewish Congress; and this campaign seems to have led to support for the successful candidacy of the current Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, who, according to Kate, has yet to comment on, or to denounce, this convention vileness.

Anyway, I recently saw the name Khaled Mouammar attached to a comment on the Globe and Mail online article by the four law students taking Mark Steyn and Maclean's to the "human rights" tribunals:

Khaled Mouammar from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Jewish American writer, Isidore Feinstein Stone, stated that 'Every war, every outburst of genocide, is prepared by propaganda which paints the vicitm, the Other, as less than human. This is the ultimate lesson of Auschwitz, he who treats his brother as less than human prepares the path to the furnace.' Mark Steyn's article in Maclean's Magazine, intentionally or unintentionally, appears to be spreading racism against Muslims by insinuating that the rising number of Muslims in Western societies is sinister and threatens to destroy western societies.

The presentation of the Muslim as a menace, a terrorist, a shadowy figure who operates outside of the accepted value system and is therfore to be feared and mistrusted has gone on for too long and is undermining the multicultural and tolerant fabric of Canada. This racist image of the Muslim is nothing more than the result of the tranference of the popular anti-Semitic animosity from a Jewish to a Muslim target.

There was then a thoughtful reply to this Mouammar from one George Brown - probably someone taking the name of the Globe's founding publisher, the pre-Confederation politician from Canada West.

' Khaled Mouammar from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: Jewish American writer, Isidore Feinstein Stone, stated that 'Every war, every outburst of genocide, is prepared by propaganda which paints the vicitm, the Other, as less than human.... This racist image of the Muslim is nothing more than the result of the tranference of the popular anti-Semitic animosity from a Jewish to a Muslim target.'

I hear this argument often now. It's not true. Judeophobia (strictly speaking there is no 'Semitic' race or religion) is a reaction to the people who claim to be first in covenant with the One God, those who don't give God a name (to be compared with other names in contests over the Greatest God) but who start a new historical era by defining God: 'I am what I am'.

Islamophobia is a reaction to the people who come relatively late to the world of monotheism and who base their claims, not to having the New New Testament, but to having the Koran, the eternal uncreated word of God, that the Jews and Christians who came before never knew entirely or have somehow forgotten or corrupted.

Racism is not racism is not racism. Jews are a race and a religion, Muslims are not. Jews, when hated, are hated for being 'first', for being religious discoverers, which in the hater's mind becomes something conspiratorial. It is an attack on the successful, something still widely allowed in commentary on Israel. Muslims, when hated, are hated for being outsiders with a righteous claim to overcome those who previously left them marginal.

I see no evidence Canadians are laying the ground for a Holocaust of Muslims. I, for one, want to defend your individual freedom to be whoever you want to be; and that means contesting certain group resentments and their claims on the state. A free society can only be based on individual rights, not group claims.

I'm stretching the metaphor, but Stephane Dion needs to take a lead from his great liberal party antecedent, "George Brown", not to mention from Stephen Harper, a man who consistently stands for what he knows is right, with regard to Israel and antisemitism, notwithstanding the political consequences it will have. In contrast, Dion seems willing to reap the rewards. Let's just hope Harper can find the support among Canadians for a majority government so that he can more actively oppose the untruths made in the name of "human rights" in this country.

Powered by ScribeFire.