Harper on Israel: Is the Prime Minister Mentally Sound?

[fuji]

I theory yes. In fact not a chance. The GG will not act simply upon a request of another minority party leader to form a government. The office of GG today is largely symbolic. The first time the GG acts as if he/she has real authority from the the Crown would also be the last.

If we're going to remove that capability from the GG, it has to land somewhere, we can't just not have it. In that case we should have a process whereby the PM is selected by a majority vote in Parliament. That way if an opposition leader commands support of the House, the House can make the appointment.

Currently it's left to the GG to do things like that, and the GG is supposed to go around and consult with people. If you remove the power from the GG it can't just be removed completely--the GG has to be replaced, not simply snuffed. An alternative would be go keep the post of GG, with all the usual reserve powers, but remove the claim that power flows from the Queen. In that case the GG should be appointed by a super majority in Parliament and the Senate, a sort of bicameral speaker, and derive their authority that way instead.

In fact I think the GG plays a crucial role in Canadian democracy. One that does not require exercise of power more than once every hundred years or so, but when exercised, can mean the difference between a democratic and a non-democratic society.

Specifically I see the GG as the last line of defense against a dictatorial Prime Minister who refuses to follow custom and tradition and attempts to usurp more power than is due to a PM.

 

[flubadub]

So it's OK for the UN to pass all kinds of one-sided resolutions against Israel, and go on various pogroms against Jews, but it's not OK for Israel to have any vote or any say in any of this?

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is put forward as a champion of women's rights.

Israel is like a wife beater who keeps beating on the wife because the police are only allowed to post warnings and not put the wife beater in jail. And you want to give the wife beater a vote on making laws about women's rights?

If Israel could find a way to stop trying to steal Palestinian land and settle for peace I'm sure they could easily get a seat on the UN.

 

[landscaper]

Israel is like a wife beater who keeps beating on the wife because the police are only allowed to post warnings and not put the wife beater in jail. And you want to give the wife beater a vote on making laws about women's rights?

If Israel could find a way to stop trying to steal Palestinian land and settle for peace I'm sure they could easily get a seat on the UN.

So you have Saudi Arabia as a sitting member of the UNPWR, interesting analogy.

Aside form the fact that the land was not originally the Palistinians.

 

[fuji]

Israel is like a wife beater who keeps beating on the wife because the police are only allowed to post warnings

Nope.

And you want to give the wife beater a vote on making laws about women's rights?

It's Saudi Arabia that has made it state policy to beat women, not Israel.

If Israel could find a way to stop trying to steal Palestinian land and settle for peace I'm sure they could easily get a seat on the UN.

I doubt it. They're banned from participating in the UN because they're lumped into the same regional group as the Arab League nations, who use their control of the regional group to exclude Israel from any sort of meaningful participation in the UN. In fact, they've banned Israel even having a seat in their regional group. They kind of have a seat at WEOG as an alternative but only with limited participation.

Just another example of how fucked up the UN is.

 

[toguy5252]

If we're going to remove that capability from the GG, it has to land somewhere, we can't just not have it. In that case we should have a process whereby the PM is selected by a majority vote in Parliament. That way if an opposition leader commands support of the House, the House can make the appointment.

Currently it's left to the GG to do things like that, and the GG is supposed to go around and consult with people. If you remove the power from the GG it can't just be removed completely--the GG has to be replaced, not simply snuffed. An alternative would be go keep the post of GG, with all the usual reserve powers, but remove the claim that power flows from the Queen. In that case the GG should be appointed by a super majority in Parliament and the Senate, a sort of bicameral speaker, and derive their authority that way instead.

In fact I think the GG plays a crucial role in Canadian democracy. One that does not require exercise of power more than once every hundred years or so, but when exercised, can mean the difference between a democratic and a non-democratic society.

Specifically I see the GG as the last line of defense against a dictatorial Prime Minister who refuses to follow custom and tradition and attempts to usurp more power than is due to a PM.

As I have said the first time the GG attempts to exercise actual authority will also be the last time. Today it is a ceremonial role only and anything beyond that is simply the Monarchist League's wet dream. i am not sure otherwise than you of anyone who would suggest otherwise. harper exploited that role when he prorogued Parliament but that was imply a constitutional trick of sorts. and a cheap one at that.

 

[oldjones]

As I have said the first time the GG attempts to exercise actual authority will also be the last time. Today it is a ceremonial role only and anything beyond that is simply the Monarchist League's wet dream. i am not sure otherwise than you of anyone who would suggest otherwise. harper exploited that role when he prorogued Parliament but that was imply a constitutional trick of sorts. and a cheap one at that.

I'm not so sure. The leader 'benefitting' from an active GG's not likely to make such a change, and the 'losing' leader won't have the opportunity. Unless the whole thing's so clumsily handled that the loser is promptly swept into power by a righteously enraged electorate, we're much more like likely to see things change for silly reasons, like abolishing the monarchy than because of the GG's misuse of authority.

Democracies quite often wind up with poorly chosen office holders, but chosen and apppointed office-holders—one hopes—have the ability to do the job they were selected for somewhat better than clumsily. As did Mme. Jean, for all that she made the wrong choice.

 

[Eric Blair]

Just look at the total hypocracy of Harpo's use of the unelected Senate to kill environmental legislation passed by the H of C. His hypocracy knows no bounds.

 

[landscaper]

Just look at the total hypocracy of Harpo's use of the unelected Senate to kill environmental legislation passed by the H of C. His hypocracy knows no bounds.

Legislation that would have done absolutly nothing towards the KYOTO accord limits that the liberals initiated and did NPTHING about for 12 years

 

[dirk076]

Just look at the total hypocracy of Harpo's use of the unelected Senate to kill environmental legislation passed by the H of C. His hypocracy knows no bounds.

Harper has consistently had his attempts to reform the Senate blocked by the Liberals and NDP. They can blame themselves. He is using the Senate the same way the Liberals have for decades. Who wouldn't? Hypocrisy is now criticizing the Senate after blocking attempts to reform it.

 

[dirk076]

Legislation that would have done absolutly nothing towards the KYOTO accord limits that the liberals initiated and did NPTHING about for 12 years

Exactly.... man the hypocrisy of Liberals know no bounds.

 

[fuji]

He is using the Senate the same way the Liberals have for decades.

Actually no, that's why it's news. The Senate outright shooting down legislation supported by a majority in the House is relatively unheard of. Usually the Senate will propose what it views as improvements on the House bill and send it back to the House for review, maybe slowing down the legislation, or having it sent for further debate in the House.

The Senate almost never outright blocks legislation.

For example when the Liberals had a majority in the Senate two years ago they never used it to block legislation enacted by the minority Parliament.

 

[dirk076]

I really don't care about the nuances. The legislation was bad legislation and the Conservatives blocked it. They did their jobs.

 

[fuji]

I really don't care about the nuances. The legislation was bad legislation and the Conservatives blocked it. They did their jobs.

The nuance here being the will of the Canadian people, as expressed at the polls, was thwarted.

 

[landscaper]

If i remember correctly the last time a bill was blocked by the senate was 1938, can't remember what the bill was.

One issue about this vote is that the liberals did not have their whole senate cacus there. If they had all been there the vote would have been different. Which leads me to 2 questions.
1) where were the missing trough feeders
2) Wht were they not there?

This is likely a case of the tories making use of a liberal screwup on attendance numbers. If the liberals really wanted the bill passed the whip should have whipped

 

[nitecrawler]

Oh no, he cares. He's miffed something fierce. He didn't get his way and that really upset him. He's a sore loser.

As for most Canadians you probably right.

I suppose he told you that over tea....

 

[nitecrawler]

I was talking about the average Canadian wondering why Harpo got spanked by the UN. Those are the people who don't know a whole lot about the UN or its many flaws but who do know they saw Harper give that UN SC seat his best shot. They also know that he bounced off. Since Harper clearly wanted that seat, many Canadians will likely conclude that it was important and they may also wonder why Harpo failed. Let's not go off on yet another tirade about the UN itself. That's not the point. In my earlier post, the UN is significant only to the extent that its rejection of Harpo's bid would likely create doubts with the average Canadian about Harpo's abilities on the world stage. Since Harper needed an excuse to remove those doubts, he attacked the UN as anti-Semitic (which may or may not be true) and declared his unequivocal support for Israel which reinforces his excuse that the UN punished him because they're anti-Semitic and he's such a close friend of Israel's.

Like all the other times we got a seat...oh wait. like never.

 

[nitecrawler]

Funny, i don't remeber voting on the bill....

 

[blackrock13]

I suppose he told you that over tea....

If you haven't figure out by now he's a control freak and has an ego the size of the NWT, then you're not paying attention.

 

[lochlan]

Israel is like a wife beater who keeps beating on the wife because the police are only allowed to post warnings and not put the wife beater in jail. And you want to give the wife beater a vote on making laws about women's rights?

If Israel could find a way to stop trying to steal Palestinian land and settle for peace I'm sure they could easily get a seat on the UN.

Probably the most retarded statement I have read in a long time.

And I read something from the Huffington Post this morning by mistake so that is saying a lot.

 

[nottyboi]

Like all the other times we got a seat...oh wait. like never.

Canada was elected for the following six terms: 1948-49, 1958–59, 1967–68, 1977–78, 1989–90, and 1999-2000 - once every decade. In 2010 under the Harper government, it lost its bid for a seat in the 2010 Security Council elections, marking the country's first failure to win a seat in the UNSC.