Charest has this one wrong
Ordinarily, it is common courtesy and mutual respect for a competing political party not to field a candidate against a newly elected party leader in a by-election. However, if the party who elected its leader happens to be separatist in nature, should the same courtesy be afforded to them?
Unlike Jean Charest, I see that Action démocratique leader Marion Dumont doesn't seem to think so.
21 Comments:
The leaders of other parties should not be blocking her entrance into the National Assembly, most importantly becasuse she is a women in a province where there are few women in politics.
The above poster obviously doesn't get it. This is about conflicting ideologies not equity.
Then why is this the first time that an opposition party has blocked the entrance of a PQ leader?
Correcting a past wrong?
I think part of that reason (as I think someone suggested above) is because it has been 35 or so years since the debate wasn't primarily about Quebec succession.
In other words, if the people of Quebec have decided to turn the page on the péquistes, then what is stopping Charest and his party from doing the same in this by-election. He should run a candidate.
It's always interesting to read what others outside of Quebec say that Quebecers 'should' be doing. Usually its with about a minimal understanding of Quebec culture, as we saw with the name changing comments.
Quebec has always been much more of a stickler for 'communal' aspects of politics, rather than the very individualistic ideas of the rest of the country. So it would nice to debate the guy writing for the Gazette, but this will have to do.
In fact, I'd suggest democracy is VERY MUCH like beauty and that it is very much in the eye of the beholder. It's not a coincidence that virtually EVERY country in the world, including China and Russia, call themselves democracy. The People's Republic maintains that it is the HIGHEST form of democracy.
So the idea that 'you either have it or you don't' is just silly. The idea that 'democracy' is defined by having more than one party running in your riding for an election is just absurd, and five seconds of thought will tell you that.
Here's an interesting way of looking at it.
Let's say you have two different countries. In one country, there are two guys who are running for election. In the other there are no elections. Does that mean one is a democracy and one isn't?
Hold on, there is more. Because we want to look at how they govern. Lets say that within the country that doesn't have elections, on every decision that leader makes, he puts it out for referenda. So when it comes to energy policy, local groups get together, look at the information, then they all vote on what kind of energy strategy that country will take.
The other country, where two guys had an election, then have a government that says, for the sake of making the example clear, that their energy policy is going to be structured in a way that most benefits them and their friends. The people have zero say in the matter, and in fact in polls they say they are opposed, and there may even be massive protests.
NOW, which would you say is more democratic? Well, quite obviously the media doesn't even believe that. When Hamas got more votes and was democraticallly elected everybody in the press freaked out. In Venezuela Chavez has been supported by more of a popular vote than ANY canadian politician EVER. Yet still he is typically described as 'a dictator'.
So the idea that this one thing equals democracy is just absurd.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ahh, only a true anti-democratic socialist would defend a dictator like Chavez. I guess it's because he has the same communist beliefs that you have regarding state run television/propaganda. Regardless, you have reached an all-time low in this post mikel.
I guess you forgot little details, which Gerry Nicholls just mentioned on his blog, like the fact that Chavez
unilaterally "changed the constitution so that he could assume the role of 'president for life', shut down Venezuela's private media organizations, expropriated private property on a massive scale and formed alliances with terrorist-supporting regimes." (hat tip Nicholls)
Not exactly what I call a budding land of freedom and democracy. However, judging from comments you made about our troops and our democratic system lately, it does sound like your utopia. Why don't you do us all a favour and go waste somebody else's time.
To each his own and Mike can write whatever the heck he wants but I'm happy he's just finaly being a little more upfront about it lately. An affinity for Chavez and in his own blog finally coming out and admitting what has been hinted at for a long time, that he believes communism is the way to go.
Since Mike is back to not providing a link to his own blog through his comment for reasons known only to him, here's the link to Mr. Archibald's blog. He's prolific and if that's your thing, enjoy.
Well, that's it exactly, a guy who gets more votes than any canadian politician has EVER gotten is called a 'dictator'. So Harper has the support of less than 40% of the population and thats MORE democratic to you?
For the other comments, thats also just blog malarky. Chavez does want to change the constitution, namely to make it so that IF he wins elections he'll be able to stay the president. Gee, does that sound like some other place we know of? Like, say, Canada?
As for the media, actually he's been very moderate considering that the private media were complicit in almost having him killed and installing a military dictatorship. Even after he regained control he still put up with them.
But that's it exactly, 'democracy' is described by some people as 'doing things we like'. So if the people of Palestine don't vote for the 'right' party, then all their claims to democracy are void. If Chavez wants to take land from private landowners (which, by the way, New brunswick does ALL the time), then THAT is why he's not considered democratic. The fact that the massive majority of Venezuealans support him is considered inconsequential.
But its worth remembering what the american founders knew full well-you can't have BOTH a democracy and a disparity of income. The poor will always want more, and there are more of them. THAT is democracy and its exactly what is going on in Venezuela.
Of course most people miss the point that its no different than what went on in Norway, which also pretty much controls virtually every aspect of the economy.
Thanks for the plug, yeah, I can't get the thing to just link from my name but obviously the more that go to the blog the better. The above remarks of Spinks are true, but by all means check it out, because like I said, EVERY democratic country is by definition 'communist'. And although these guys don't seem to care for democracy, they are definitely in the minority.
Mike Archibald of Waterloo wrote: It's always interesting to read what others outside of Quebec say that Quebecers 'should' be doing.
Yeah, just like it's interesting to read what others outside of New Brunswick, like yourself, say that New Brunswickers 'should' be doing. (i.e. referendum on democratic reform or the thousand other things you've ranted about)
Now do you see the hypocrisy of your existence Mikel?
Maybe you should start focusing on your own turf for awhile. Yeah, I know what you're think: but I used to live here once upon a time.
Well, the same could be said for me with Ontario, Quebec and many other provinces. Moreover, how do you know ellen or any of the other posters weren't former Quebecers.
The point is you don't, so why not tone down the negative rhetoric a bit. Either that, or think about taking your act somewhere else.
Actually, Ellen was essentially agreeing with what I was saying (or rather we both have the same take on it, that 'democracy' doesn't necessarily mean what the author thinks it does).
And of course all I said was that it was 'interesting', I certainly didn't say it was 'invalid'. All that matters in Quebec is what QUEBECERS want, just like in the case of changing names when getting married all that matter is what they want, since its their laws.
But nobody said they couldn't talk about it, its just interesting. Its interesting that New Brunswick has passed several legislative changes about marriage and divorce and NOBODY has ever mentioned them. So there is all kinds of emphasis on what is going on in Quebec, but none about New Brusnwick's laws. Also 'interesting'.
So just because something strikes me as interesting hardly means anything about censorship or their right to say it, so its hardly hypocritical (let alone 'hypocritical to my existence'-whatever that means).
But once again we can go back to the root of the above comments. And that of course is that neither you nor Spinks are public, and being 'anonymous' means that of course you may not be New Brunswickers AT ALL. You could be in Alabama or ANYWHERE.
I've come out and said where I AM, and I've also said where I'm from and hence my interest, and people can check on that. But while sitting in the anonymous house, even though I'm pretty sure I know your identity, it can't be PROVEN, so the whole "you don't live here so you're a hypocrite" is on pretty thin ice.
Just to come clean though, my 'policy' is that my 'active' time is spent on ontario politics, while my online time is on New Brunswick politics. And as for the New Brunswick refererndum, it's hardly hypocritical since I can't even vote in such a referendum so it certainly doesn't do me any good.
Sorry that I'm being a foil to your ideological message, but its only fair both sides be represented. Like I've said, the site is a great resource and there have been invaluable links and ideas here and there is much that we agree on, however, people should be able to civilly disagree. However, I suppose it's undertandable that offense was taken for the above sarcasm, but it was hardly malicious.
Although if somebody was offended then I apologize, that's easy enough to do.
Seems not everyone on the left is quite so enamoured with Chavez. Someone is going to get spoken to for not falling in line.
Just to come clean though, my 'policy' is that my 'active' time is spent on Ontario politics, while my online time is on New Brunswick politics.
I thought you said the reason you did so poorly in the Ontario municipal elections was because you had no time to dedicate to the cause. So now you do? You are a hard guy to figure out Mikel...one day it's this another day it is that. It's pretty tiring trying to keep up to what is truth and what is "Mikel truth".
Though I can see why you wouldn't have anytime for dealing with the real issues in your "real" neighbourhood since you write at least an Archie digest a day in the comments setions of New Brunswick blogs.
quite a donnybrook brewing in here
Nice, dude, what was that about 'negative rhetoric'? Let's change the topic shall we. But I do so love Archie comics:) This I do on days when I'm at the computer Mr. nosy, you'll find just as many cases where I don't write anything, and like many blogs mine isn't updated every day (plus I'm a very fast typer). Isn't it easy to change the subject when you know something about the other guy?
As for WHY I did badly on the election I doubt my words were that I didn't have time. The fact is that in any election you never know WHY somebody is going to vote any which way. I didn't talk to any voters, simple as that. Part of the reason was because like most people I had other things to do (the time thing), part of the reason is that politics is not especially fun, particularly for people who don't enjoy knocking on people's doors.
However, as I said, I handed out approximately thirty pamphlets and got 100 votes. That's pretty good.
So if I"m being asked to tone down the negative rhetoric, I'd think whats good for the goose eh?
As for the link above, notice its doesn't say 'left', it says 'moderate'. Big difference. But more interesting is to look at the touted reasons. First, an ELECTED official wants to get rid of term limits. Well, again, thats not anti democratic, if it were then Canada would be one of the most anti demcratic countries in the world. We get stuck with leaders for decades at a time-even when less than half vote for them.
Another is that, heaven forbid, an elected official is actually making a public face for himself. Imagine that, well, lets all pillory Stephen Harper for all those cowboy hat wearing barbecues he goes to.
More importantly again is policy. The media I already dealt with, and it is true that cancelling a license is, maybe, big news, but not really. How often, for example, do you hear Human Rights Watch talk about the hundreds of small attempts at community radio stations in Canada get nixed by the CRTC? Have you EVER heard them say anything about it?
And Canada, in case you didn't know, has even more of a media monopoly than the US, even more than Venezuela, in fact the highest in the industrial world. Yet it is EXTREMELY tough to get a radio station accredited, as many in most cities have discovered thanks to big protests by, you guessed it, Rogers.
And again, that doesn't even get into the fact that this station was the main propaganda outlet of the guys who were trying to KILL Chavez. It's ironic to see such emphasis on this case, meanwhile, DOZENS of journalists have been killed in Russia and its virtually NEVER mentioned. Yet cancelling a license is HUGE. Go figure.
As for the last, the story about ruling by decree is not quite accurate. This is interesting:
PRESIDENT BUSH TO RULE BY DECREE
--The president granted this power to himself with an executive order. In Venezuela, certain powers stand to be shifted through a vote in the legislature.
--Venezuela’s decision included weeks of public debate and massive international press scrutiny. Oh, and the Rule of Law. Here at home, the directive was passed quietly last week, and was only reported today for the first time.
--Venezuela’s proposed law is temporary; Bush's power to Rule by Decree will stand until the president decides to overturn his own power.
"Having lost control of Congress," Mr. Strauss said, "the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch."
Finally, as an interesting note, somebody put up a chart of the effects of Chavez rule and it showed poverty dropping from 70% to 30%. Meanwhile, numerous studies show Canada's poverty level inching up past 20%. Makes ya think.
Hey, at least I'm not like other New Brunswick bloggers (won't name any names) who 86 any comment they think disagrees with their philosophy.
Hint: you visit both their sites.
Like I said, I really enjoy this site. There are only about four or five sites I go to in NB. I don't even bother with Charles site anymore, although I must admit that I wish he'd cut off ALL comments, since they don't have anything to do with ideology at all anymore.
Spinks hardly ever posts anymore, so now I just go to the two Moncton ones. David Campbell doesn't often restrict his comments, I had a row with him about that about a year ago when we had a lengthy discussion and he had that ideologcial crisis, which then passed. I don't agree with his 'ideology' either, but he has good stuff and has never blocked me since.
Blogs don't tend to stick around long, which is too bad. I thought PoliticoNB was doing an invaluable service talking each day about the legislature in articles that make mine look like aphorisms. Anything that talks about politics is a good thing, particular in NB where the media hardly ever does.
Wow, you enjoy this site? If that's the case, I guess I wouldn't want to see someone that doesn't.
There may be lots, if somebody doesn't like it, they won't come. A good site will have good issues and a good interpretation. People won't agree on conclusions, and if everybody does then its not a blog, its a pamphlet-and very very dull usually. When things get nastily personal, thats a different story, but since stopping writing anonymously its not something I'm averse at discussing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home