Comments for Proud Conservative

Comment on CUPE ban is out to lunch! by Anastasia

Anastasia — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:04:25 +0000

This is pretty scarry. I hope there are enough people who will support free speach even if they disagree with it. I hate to see old Soviet Union rules here.

Comment on CUPE ban is out to lunch! by scottypruysers

scottypruysers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:12:57 +0000

Sid and CUPE have now moved away from banning academics and are now calling for wider institutional sanctions. I watched him attempt to defend his views on the Michael Coren show and it was not pretty. The lack of understanding that he has is outstanding!

I totally agree that the banning of free speech and inquiry is a scary thought.

Comment on CUPE ban is out to lunch! by darcymeyers

darcymeyers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:19:00 +0000

My problem was more with the position “ban” on free-speech and inquiry than the protests.

cheers

Comment on CUPE ban is out to lunch! by darcymeyers

darcymeyers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:16:43 +0000

Ahh..I see. I have no problems with protesting, I just think if your going to go through the trouble at least inform your own opinion. I guess it can be a case of Useful idiots.

Comment on CUPE ban is out to lunch! by scottypruysers

scottypruysers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:54:23 +0000

I think what Coren was getting at when he wrote that, was that even if ill informed, a protest can still help democracy insomuch as it gives an opportunity for members of society a rare chance to exercise democratic participation.

Moroever, such movements create debate and discourse, something that is often lacking in Canada. More to the point, these movements can hopefully bring to light the reality of the matter and let the truth prevail.

Thus, even if ill informed, these protests can have a positive effect.

Comment on CUPE ban is out to lunch! by darcymeyers

darcymeyers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:08:39 +0000

Nice summary.
The logic(or lack of) behind CUPE’s position here is really dangerous and the ridicule of these fools is more than justified.
I am astounded by the quote ““Peaceful and legal protest against Israel or any other nation is entirely acceptable and even helpful in a free and democratic society, even when it’s ill informed and predictable.”
How is ill informed protest helpful, especially when orchastrated by powerful lobby groups?

It goes against the priciples of a free society, and they desevere the castigation being heaped on them.

Comment on Public Opinion and the Coalition by scottypruysers

scottypruysers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:03:48 +0000

Coalitions are without precedent. The transfer of power, however, is not. As we saw in the King Byng affair, if a government cannot retain the confidence of the House, but another party can, they should be given the opportunity to govern. Hopefully this clears up what I was trying to say.

Comment on Public Opinion and the Coalition by darcymeyers

darcymeyers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:59:09 +0000

Thanks for the response. Our comments are crossing wires here.

On my blog you stated “I do not agree with you that it goes against constitutional convention” in regards to the coalition and transfer of power.

And in your previous response you state “Without this precedent, the idea of a coalition government is seen as foreign”. With which I agree.

In my opinion if you further the argument of precedent it follows that precedent (or lack of) is the basis of conventions. Since there is no precedent, the constitutional convention follows the common practice.

It may not be undemocratic in the truest sense, as written within the constitution. But not all our democratic principles are explicit within our constitution (as conventions), and as the Supreme court has stated “‘democracy was one of “the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution.”

Comment on Public Opinion and the Coalition by scottypruysers

scottypruysers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:37:46 +0000

Thanks for the comment. I truly do not think that Canadians care about whether or not the parties were up front about the coalition. Rather, as I mention in my post, I think it is about the lack of precedent. Canada has had a long history of majority governments. Only in the past 50 years has this country began to experience minority ones. As such, Canadians never experienced coalition governments (much of which can be also attributed to our FPTP system).

Without this precedent, the idea of a coalition government is seen as foreign. Something those Western European countries have…. not Canada. Again, this is why I argue that it is not undemocratic, but is instead unCanadian.

Comment on Public Opinion and the Coalition by darcymeyers

darcymeyers — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:13:22 +0000

“The lack of precedent is single handedly the most important reason for the coalitions lack of support”
—-
I disagree. I think canadians could potentially support a coalition. Just not this coalition, and not this way. If these parties would have opened the door to the possibility of a viable coalition during the election campaign I think opposition would have been far less.
These parties choose the opposite, and explicitly ruled out the possibility. Voters gave support to these parties knowing they would not join forces in a coalition. To do so after the fact was a complete betrayal of that trust secured at the ballot box.
Dion could have stated what Ignatieff has state, “a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition”. This would have given him political legitimacy for the actions taken. Not doing so was anti-democratic and deserved the reaction and result.
As for the disconnect between regular canadians and the political class, I wrote a piece on my blog titled “Window into the Federation.”
It is my brief opinion piece on the happenings. Feel free to check it out if you like. darcymeyers.wordpress.com

Cheers