THE ALMOST NEW REPUBLIC
January 9th 2007 12:27
THE HARPER GOVERNMENT
I received an article the other from my friend Jim Stillman, that was published in The New Republic. It was written by Gregory Levey, an ex-pat Canadian living in New York now. He teaches at Ryerson University.
Anyone reading this article, who is not aware of Canadian politics, might get the wrong idea about Canada. I will try to fill in a few facts.
Mr. Levey writes, "In 2003, as the United States went to war against Iraq, Harper--then the Canadian opposition leader--published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal repudiating the Canadian government's decision not to join the war. "This is a serious mistake," he wrote. "The Canadian Alliance--the official opposition in parliament--supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values." This is very true. Canada has supported Britain in two world wars and there is nothing wrong with going back to what we used to do, rather than what the Liberals wanted to do. And if that includes supporting the US in their War on Terrorism, so be it. After all, we are neighbours and if you can't go next door to borrow a cup of sugar, well, that's not the type of neighbour I'd want. Canada owes the US a great deal and it's time we started paying back.
He goes on to say, "Though Canada has not sent troops to Iraq, in May the Harper government voted to extend and expand Canada's mission in Afghanistan, where an average of about 2000 troops have been deployed since 2001, despite the fact that Canadian soldiers there are being killed in vastly disproportionate numbers and the war is consequently becoming increasingly unpopular in Canada." The fact is that all parties voted to send troops to Afghanistan in the first place. Nobody seemed to be listening when it was made clear they were going in as a peacemaking force, not a peacekeeping one like the Liberals made us out to be. Canadian soldiers are not being killed in disproportionate numbers. In any war there will be casualties, and that is a shame, but it is also a fact. One cannot extrapolate one particular day's worth of casualties into the whole term of the war. If you did that, then what we suffered at Vimy Ridge and Dieppe would put our casualty list beyond comprehension. We would have suffered losses in the millions. The ones who moan about losses seem not to know that in the 6 years Canada has been in Afghanistan, 43 soldiers have been killed. An average of just over 7 per year. This is disproportionate? Any soldier killed in duty is a shame and is grieved not only by the family, but the country as well. But 7 per year? We kill a lot more than that each year here at home with people driving drunk.
Mr. Levey writes, "Lately, his government has even begun to take on Iran, which Harper has called "the biggest single threat the planet faces." A lot of Liberals don't understand this. They would rather send an organization like the ACLU to defend the Arabs when they board a plane and start acting like terrorists or defend a truck driver smuggling a couple of Iraqis into a sea port than admit there are already terrorist cells in both the USA and Canada just waiting for the word to strike again.
Further in the report, he writes, "It is no coincidence that a large part of the Conservative Party's electoral base is from the oil-rich West, from which Harper himself hails. That base is also composed of a strong religious and socially conservative element, who have never before been vocal in Canadian federal politics, but whose presence can be clearly felt in the government's current domestic agenda. Canada's legalization of gay marriage in 2005 energized this constituency, and they provided critical support to Harper's election bid last year." The gay marriage idea was forced through Parliament by then PM Paul Martin, who made his party vote his way. Stephen Harper made a suggestion to open the issue again to let MP's vote the way their constituents wanted them to vote. He proposed a vote to hold the vote again. With more then 52% of the population against gay ‘marriage' you'd think it would be a done deal. Not so. Like all politicians, the majority of our elected representatives forgot who they were working for and voted not to vote on the issue.
Mr. Levey writes, "While Harper enjoys strong support in rural areas, particularly in Canada's rugged Western provinces, he is less popular in ethnically-diverse cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and in French Canada." This is true. Toronto and Vancouver have large populations of new immigrants. A lot of them probably shouldn't be here, but the lax Liberal immigration policy got them into Canada in the first place. Why wouldn't they vote Liberal, to show their thanks, instead of Conservative. As for ‘French Canada', Quebec is out to feather their own nest and will stand against any other party just to get more money.
Mr. Levey finishes his article with, "After the Democratic victory in the midterm elections and the conservative turn Canada has taken over the last year, I doubt many of my marriage proposals from 2004 are still on the table. But perhaps my inbox will now start to fill with queries from Republicans." I think the midterm elections in the US were just a speed-bump, meant to wake up the Republicans in their thinking and policies. I know Canada is better for having a PM like Harper and perhaps, more importantly, having a minority government. We had a Liberal majority for the last 13 years and all that happened was that Canada was turning into the laughing stock of the world. With a minority government, Harper has to tread lightly, but maybe we can get things done and regain some respect.
I received an article the other from my friend Jim Stillman, that was published in The New Republic. It was written by Gregory Levey, an ex-pat Canadian living in New York now. He teaches at Ryerson University.
Anyone reading this article, who is not aware of Canadian politics, might get the wrong idea about Canada. I will try to fill in a few facts.
Mr. Levey writes, "In 2003, as the United States went to war against Iraq, Harper--then the Canadian opposition leader--published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal repudiating the Canadian government's decision not to join the war. "This is a serious mistake," he wrote. "The Canadian Alliance--the official opposition in parliament--supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values." This is very true. Canada has supported Britain in two world wars and there is nothing wrong with going back to what we used to do, rather than what the Liberals wanted to do. And if that includes supporting the US in their War on Terrorism, so be it. After all, we are neighbours and if you can't go next door to borrow a cup of sugar, well, that's not the type of neighbour I'd want. Canada owes the US a great deal and it's time we started paying back.
Further in the report, he writes, "It is no coincidence that a large part of the Conservative Party's electoral base is from the oil-rich West, from which Harper himself hails. That base is also composed of a strong religious and socially conservative element, who have never before been vocal in Canadian federal politics, but whose presence can be clearly felt in the government's current domestic agenda. Canada's legalization of gay marriage in 2005 energized this constituency, and they provided critical support to Harper's election bid last year." The gay marriage idea was forced through Parliament by then PM Paul Martin, who made his party vote his way. Stephen Harper made a suggestion to open the issue again to let MP's vote the way their constituents wanted them to vote. He proposed a vote to hold the vote again. With more then 52% of the population against gay ‘marriage' you'd think it would be a done deal. Not so. Like all politicians, the majority of our elected representatives forgot who they were working for and voted not to vote on the issue.
Mr. Levey writes, "While Harper enjoys strong support in rural areas, particularly in Canada's rugged Western provinces, he is less popular in ethnically-diverse cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and in French Canada." This is true. Toronto and Vancouver have large populations of new immigrants. A lot of them probably shouldn't be here, but the lax Liberal immigration policy got them into Canada in the first place. Why wouldn't they vote Liberal, to show their thanks, instead of Conservative. As for ‘French Canada', Quebec is out to feather their own nest and will stand against any other party just to get more money.
Mr. Levey finishes his article with, "After the Democratic victory in the midterm elections and the conservative turn Canada has taken over the last year, I doubt many of my marriage proposals from 2004 are still on the table. But perhaps my inbox will now start to fill with queries from Republicans." I think the midterm elections in the US were just a speed-bump, meant to wake up the Republicans in their thinking and policies. I know Canada is better for having a PM like Harper and perhaps, more importantly, having a minority government. We had a Liberal majority for the last 13 years and all that happened was that Canada was turning into the laughing stock of the world. With a minority government, Harper has to tread lightly, but maybe we can get things done and regain some respect.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Don Lee
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
SL, thanks. I think I'm finally over my writer's block, lol.Either that or there's enough in the news to get me riled again.