Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Coalition talk: Contrast the context in opposition requests to the GG

Ah, Liberals and Dippers are now using a letter written in 2004 by then opposition leader Stephen Harper 2004 letter to then Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson regarding the current minority government situation. 

From Jane Taber at the Globe and Mail:

But the Liberals fired back this morning, noting that when he was opposition leader Mr. Harper signed a letter to the Governor-General “stating that he was willing to work with the NDP and the Bloc to form the government.”

“Yes, that was a coalition between three parties, including the Bloc,” a senior Ignatieff official says. “And the Conservatives were in the thick of it. So please, stop pointing to that scarecrow!”
Scarecrow?  Um, really?  Maybe click your heels three times and come back to reality.  Contrast the context in the request in Stephen Harper's 2004 letter to the one in December 2008 written by then opposition leader Stephane Dion (pdf).

Stephen Harper 2004 letter (Bold emphasis mine):
September 9, 2004




Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Also signed by Duceppe and Layton
 
Note that while the letter reminds the GG that the three opposition parties constitute a majority in the House, nowhere does Stephen Harper suggest that the three opposition parties wish to form a government.  NOWHERE.  Yet Libs and Dips continue to use this as a gotcha tactic.  Well sorry. 
 
Now let's contrast that with Stephane Dion's infamous 2008 coalition letter...
 
December 1, 2008
 
 
 
 
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA1


Excellency,

As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.

As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.  The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.

In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada
Note the difference?

Not only that but Dion, Layton, and Duceppe were shown in public meeting togetherpublished a letter to the public the same day as well as put out cooperative and policy accords.

Monday, December 1, 2008




To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 percent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,


Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, the Bloc Québécois
For anyone to say that Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 is dead wrong.

So now, the Lib-NDP coalition talk continues, with supposed high-level talks between former Liberal PM, Jean Chretien and former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent.  The Conservatives have already released a statement warning of the risk of a coalition, again.
“A Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois Coalition would be led by a man who left Canada for 34 years and professed his love for America,” the talking points say. “It would put our economic recovery in the hands of former NDP Premier Bob Rae and current NDP leader Jack Layton. And it would contain a policy veto for the Bloc Quebecois – a party that doesn’t even believe in a united Canada.”

All this aside, I wonder if the resurrection of the coalition wouldn't be happening if current Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff's polling numbers weren't so low.

As I always do, look at this from another point of view...  a certain someone and Jean Chretien were on PowerCorp.  Chretien likes Dion and brought him into cabinet.  In first leadership race after Martin steps down, a certain someone drops out and supports Dion on last ballot, not Iggy. 

Do you think the NDP grassroots would ever want to be in a coalition with Ignatieff?  I don't think so.  But perhaps a certain someone. Someone who was a former provincial NDPer himself.

39 comments:

Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Seer said...

Wait!

Wait!

Can somebody explain to me the purpose of Stephen Harper's 9/9/04 letter to — ah — the GG — if he wasn't you know — volunteering to be prime minister?

It's not like this is a letter to The National Post. It's the GG. What was the purpose of this letter if he wasn't suggesting a coalition government?

Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...

"Can somebody explain to me the purpose of Stephen Harper's 9/9/04 letter to — ah — the GG — if he wasn't you know — volunteering to be prime minister?"

The letter speaks for itself. The letter calls on the GG to consider all options before dissolving Parliament.

Certainly, a coalition government was one such option. What were the others?

Allowing the Tories to govern alone with the cooperation of the Bloc and NDP -- without a formal coalition -- was another option, if the NDP and Bloc were prepared to cooperate.

Another option would be declining to dissolve Parliament, and instructing Martin to continue.

In the end, however, Adrienne Clarkson chose to do precisely what her predecessor would eventually do: she chose to follow the advice of the Prime Minister.

All this being said, you can try all you want to read "coalition government" into "consider all options". You have to disavow all the other options at the GG's disposal to do that, which frequently you've proven yourself more than willing to do.

It doesn't mean that your argument has a basis in reality -- it doesn't.

liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
KEvron said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hatrock said...

People! PEOPLE! Please take your side debates and grudges away from my blog and please stick to the subject at hand!

Geez, a blogger doesn't moderate and hell breaks loose.

And just to let you know, I'm probably gonna delete the posts regarding that other topic totally not related to said subject at hand.

Sincerely,
The Management

hatrock said...

Ok, while I appreciate anyone who reads my blog, I also appreciate good debate and those who post, but I don't appreciate stuff waaaay off topic, so I've deleted all posts which I've deemed off-topic.

Patrick Ross said...

Fair enough, Hatrock. Your blog, your rules.

You just need to understand that you've been targetted by some very disturbed people who are in desparate need of a good ass-whupping.

Unfortunately, sometimes the ass-whuppings just don't take. For example, ls seems to need to be put back in his place everytime he crawls out of his hole.

This time the venue for that just happened to be your blog.

liberal supporter said...

I don't think Hatrock appreciates that the very first comment on this post was ad hominem from PR against someone who didn't even comment here.

Even now, after having the entire mess deleted, PR chooses to engage in further off topic attacks, hoping to start yet another of his mindless flame wars.

On topic:
The fact that the Harper letter to the GG did not mention the word 'coalition' does not negate the fact that he was proposing what would amount to a coalition. Note that none of the letters you quote contain the word "coalition". Harper clearly stated he had been in "consultations" with other parties, while Dion said the GG should call on him to form a "collaborative" government. In either case, a government formed would require support from more than one party. Given the amount of time required to get up and running, once a government falls, it would be pointless to ask someone else to form another government unless it seems likely that they can and that it will last more than the first vote. Otherwise, why not ask an independent to make the attempt?


Nobody said coalition, except you.

Patrick Ross said...

Fucking wah.

Complaining that someone who specializes in ad hominem attacks has been subject to an ad hominem attack, is, first off, hilarious.

Beyond that, it just so happened that what I said was also true, and related to the topic of the post.

Robert Peter John Day misrepresented Hatrock's argument at his blog.

Thus what I said was directly related to the topic of, and the argument offered in, this post.

Moreover, for liberal supporter -- who actually started the argument in question -- to accuse anyone else of starting a flame war is equally priceless.

But there is one thing I'd like to direct back to liberal supporter's attention.

In this blog post, you called me a "pathological liar" when I said taht you suggested that a "not guilty" verdict meant that the woman hadn't been date raped.

As it turns out, you did in fact make that very argument.

Care to explain yourself? I'd daresay you owe me an apology, and I'm waiting to hear it.

liberal supporter said...

you called me a "pathological liar" when I said taht you suggested that a "not guilty" verdict meant that the woman hadn't been date raped.

As it turns out, you did in fact make that very argument
.
Selective quoting and misrepresentation will never win an argument. A not guilty verdict means there was no crime committed in the eyes of the law. I am sure there are many things that are crimes in your eyes, such as my continued uninjured existence, but unless a court makes a finding of guilt, no penalty is to be exacted, either by the corrections system, or your own vigilante system. You can argue that the verdict was wrong, but unless and until it is overturned, you are lying to call the woman a date rape victim. Feel free to try to confuse court findings with what may have actually happened in a particular case, but the fact is we live under the rule of law, and your desire to ignore legal decisions is foolhardy.

By continuing to make your incorrect assertions about things I have said, you continue to demonstrate you are a pathological liar.

If you are so ready to call the woman in this case a date rape victim, why don't you put up a nice post on your blog calling the guy who was acquitted a rapist? Make sure you spell his name right, so he'll find out about it. I'm sure you'd enjoy yet another libel suit.

Care to explain yourself? I'd daresay you owe me an apology, and I'm waiting to hear it.
I do not owe you an apology, since I have simply stated the truth as I see it. You are a pathological liar.

Carry on with your hijacking of hatrock's blog, but I think you owe him an apology. I'm sure he's waiting to hear it.

Meanwhile, on topic:
If Stephen Harper promises and swears that no anti-choice legislation will be allowed to be presented, including private members bills (that is his current "I didn't start it" out), then I'm sure the other parties will promise that they will not attempt to create a coalition.

Patrick Ross said...

"Selective quoting and misrepresentation will never win an argument. A not guilty verdict means there was no crime committed in the eyes of the law."

*Snicker*

No, that isn't what a verdict of "not guilty" means.

But good news, everyone! According to liberal supporter, Nicole Brown's murder wasn't a crime in the eyes of the law.

As for liberal supporter's fabricated claims that I would like to see him injured, I'd also remind him that he's the one who mused about bringing an automatic shotgun to a fistfight between Robbie Day and Steve Janke.

(The amusing thing is that an automatic shotgun is a prohibited weapon in Canada. In even possessing one, liberal supporter would be in violation of Canada's gun laws. Ooooh, those pro-gun control progressives.)

As it's been explained to liberal supporter before, a "Not Guilty" verdict doesn't mean that no crime was committed. Rather, it means that the court found insufficient evidence to convict -- even though the judge in question noted in his written verdict that the accused probably did it.

In strict legal parlance, there's a world of difference difference between a "not guilty" verdict and an "innocent" verdict. It seems that the notion that "not guilty" also means not innocent just can't seem to penetrate fibby libby's thick skull.

It's interesting that you continue to call me a pathological liar for pointing out something ridiculously ignorant that you said. It's actually rather amusing that you continue to stand by that ignorance and stupidity.

I guess we just need to chalk this up to the Orwellian nature of fibby libby's mind. When he calls me a "liar", it's because I told the truth.

So it's clear that when fibby libby calls me a "pathological liar", it actually means that I pathologically tell the truth.

I can live with that.

Anonymous said...

Uhm... Guilty and innocent are contradictory terms - if you are not guilty, you are innocent, and if you are not innocent, you are guilty. That, we get from the English language, without need to study or introspection of any type.

Of course, being found not-guilty is by no means the same as not being guilty - but it certainly means being innocent in the eyes of the law. That's why people found not-guilty don't get punished.

Audrey II said...

"According to liberal supporter, Nicole Brown's murder wasn't a crime in the eyes of the law."

I love how Pat just illustrated L.S.'s point about deliberately misrepresenting others' arguments. Some things just do not ever change. There's a difference between good-faith reductio and intellectually dishonest strawman slaying. Maybe one of these days Pat will abandon his penchant for the latter, but I wouldn't hold my breath

Patrick Ross said...

*Snicker*

I love the way that Audrey wants to help fibby libby dodge a logical extension of an argument in desperation.

Seems to me that Audrey would like to stand by his "not guilty means no crime committed" argument.

And frankly, I'm more than prepared to allow her to do that.

After all, it isn't as if it's the dumbest thing you've ever said o astrology master.

There is, in fact, one thing that Audrey and fibby libby have in common -- they're both dedicated to standing behind absolutely ridiculous arguments, and they're both committed to lying for ideological purposes.

liberal supporter said...

According to liberal supporter, Nicole Brown's murder wasn't a crime in the eyes of the law.
No. I should have been more clear though, since you are being so willfully obtuse. When I said "A not guilty verdict means there was no crime committed in the eyes of the law", I should have said "no crime committed by the accused in the eyes of the law".

For most people, referring to a not guilty verdict would mean we are talking about the accused. A not guilty verdict for someone else does not exonerate me if I committed a crime, but it appears PR would have it that I claim a not guilty verdict in one case means no facts of the case are true. That makes as much sense as a court attempting to repeal gravity.

In the Simpson case, it is pretty clear a crime was committed, since she could not have killed herself, and an accident can be safely ruled out. In the "date rape" case, it cannot even be established that a crime was committed at all.

PR's position is one that despite a court ruling, he knows what happened. I invited him to claim on his blog that the acquitted guy is a rapist, because it did happen and the guy is guilty, despite a court ruling otherwise. For some reason, he has not done this.

As for liberal supporter's fabricated claims that I would like to see him injured, I'd also remind him that he's the one who mused about bringing an automatic shotgun to a fistfight between Robbie Day and Steve Janke.
I guess my point, which is that once you cannot win an argument and instead resort to violence, there is no end to the escalation, was lost on PR. I don't think he really didn't get it, but was instead being willfully obtuse.
Perhaps I should have mused about bringing a small tactical nuclear weapon, but I am sure PR would still sternly inform me that nuclear weapons are prohibited. Still I wish I'd thought of that, just to see him huff and puff about it.

(The amusing thing is that an automatic shotgun is a prohibited weapon in Canada. In even possessing one, liberal supporter would be in violation of Canada's gun laws. Ooooh, those pro-gun control progressives.)
Your silly conclusions are far more amusing than anything I say.

liberal supporter said...

As it's been explained to liberal supporter before, a "Not Guilty" verdict doesn't mean that no crime was committed. Rather, it means that the court found insufficient evidence to convict -- even though the judge in question noted in his written verdict that the accused probably did it.
Nice try with "explained to me before", but nothing was explained by you. I continue to invite you to post on your blog about the guy you have judged a "rapist" and be sure you spell his name correctly.

In strict legal parlance, there's a world of difference difference between a "not guilty" verdict and an "innocent" verdict. It seems that the notion that "not guilty" also means not innocent just can't seem to penetrate fibby libby's thick skull.
Poor baby. Did you lie awake thinking of that stinging insult?

Not guilty means the accused did not commit the crime in the eyes of the law. Continuing to claim he did would be libel in the eyes of the law, as you know full well, given that you have not posted your claim that the guy is a rapist complete with his name.

It's interesting that you continue to call me a pathological liar for pointing out something ridiculously ignorant that you said. It's actually rather amusing that you continue to stand by that ignorance and stupidity.
I'm sure it takes very little to interest or amuse you.

I guess we just need to chalk this up to the Orwellian nature of fibby libby's mind. When he calls me a "liar", it's because I told the truth.
It also takes very little for you to jump to conclusions and put words into other peoples' mouths to support your conclusions.

So it's clear that when fibby libby calls me a "pathological liar", it actually means that I pathologically tell the truth.

I can live with that
.
Speaking of Orwellian logic...

Hahahahahahahaha!

Apologies to hatrock for responding to this clown here.

Patrick Ross said...

fibby tries so hard, but he's still wrong.

A "not guilty" verdict doesn't even mean that the accused didn't commit a crime in the eyes of the law. What it means is that the prosecution failed to obtain a conviction.

Moreover, fibby, there's a big difference between a person not having committed a crime "in the eyes of the law" and not having committed a crime in actuality.

It's pretty clear that this escapes him.

As for posting about thsi individual in question, I can't help but wonder what fibby imagines they'd sue for:

I state that the complainant (not plaintiff, as fibby continues to insist -- therefore continuing to demonstrate his ignorance of the law) insisted that she told him "no", and that the Judge in the case said he probably did it.

We all know that fibby doesn't understand libel law, but unfortunately for the would-be plaintiff (in a civil case), all these things are true.

Hell, I'd almost invite that lawsuit for the fun of waging the counter-suit. Brewery owner, you say?

Hmmmm. I could use a brewery.

I don't know what I'm going to do with a cache of linux-equipped computers, though.

Oh well, I'll figure that out later....

Patrick Ross said...

One supplementary detail.

You know admit that you uttered the phrase in question. By logical extension, you have disavowed the claim that it was a lie.

It's almost heart-warming to see you clarify your stance, but there's still a mass of unaccounted-for stupidity in your original comments.

For example, your claim was not that the accused hadn't date raped the woman in the eyes of the law -- whcih, as has been noted, does not mean that the accused hadn't date-raped the woman in actuality.

Your claim was that the "not guilty" verdict meant that the woman was not date-raped.

As I previously mentioned, that actually isn't true under the auspices of a not guilty verdict. Not guilty verdicts can be delivered for a myriad of reasons that do not include alleged innocence of the accused.

For example, an individual could be declared to be "not guilty" because evidence presented in a trial had been falsified -- the individual may have actually been guilty, but gets off the hook due to the actions of an over zealous police officer.

That wouldn't mean that the individual had committed no crime, and thus there was no victim -- particularly if a judge were to note in their written verdict that the accused probably did it, but the court was refused to acquit on account of said falsified evidence.

To anyone who isn't hell-bent on standing by an intellectually-indefensible argument, this would be crystal clear.

But not to fibby libby. He's either not smart enough to comprehend the depths of the ignorance he's demonstrated, or he realizes it and is simply fibbing.

This being fibby libby, it could be either one. Only fibby knows for sure.

Audrey II said...

"Seems to me that Audrey would like to stand by his "not guilty means no crime committed" argument."

Of course it would. Impotently putting words in others' mouths and blowing over strawmen is how you roll.

"they're both dedicated to standing behind absolutely ridiculous arguments"

Your assessment of others' arguments tends to lose credibility when you can't even accurately summarize them.

When you decide you'd like to move beyond grade-school rhetoric, please let us know, Pat. In the meantime, watching you continue to huff and and make your name synonymous with the same asinine nonsense will continue to provide a certain degree of amusement.

Patrick Ross said...

Right, Audrey, right.

Because Canadian Cynic misrepresenting Hatrock = good.

(Allegedly) misrepresenting you = bad.

Right? Even when I'm not actually misrepresenting you. Right?

That's an old and tired act, Audrey. No one worthy of note takes it even the slightest bit seriously.

As for grade-school rhetoric, voila.

But, by all means, continue to lecture me about the speck in my eye while you jab the whole tree into your own.

Patrick Ross said...

Now that the Chickenwankers are put to bet, I'm going to deal with the Clown.

fibby, you insist that your automatic shotgun comment was criticism of escalating arguments one cannot win into physical violence.

It was, in fact, Robbie Day who escalated an argument he couldn't win into violence. Thus, your criticism was clearly meant for him.

Yet I have another comment from you on record that praises Day's decision to escalate that argument with Steve Janke as part of a master plan against myself.

You can't hold both of these positions, fibby. You have to pick one.

That you so quickly cannibalize your own arguments casts your clarification of what I'm going to call the OJ argument into severe doubt.

I don't think you ever really meant that the "not guilty" verdict means the accused committed no crime in the eyes of the law. I think you meant precisely what you said to begin with. And I know you'd bee far too dishonest to ever admit it.

But that's our fibby libby.

generic cialis said...

I, of course, a newcomer to this blog, but the author does not agree