CBC News - Politics - Longer Afghan mission doesn't need vote: Harper
Freedom and democracy here in Canada?
Freedom and democracy here in Canada?
Extending the Afghan Mission Without Parliamentary Approval?
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
I think this guy sums up the situation for me:
Spencer wrote:
Spencer wrote:
Why would Harper want a vote anyways? Its not like he has ANY respect for democracy. How many times has he shown contempt for democracy? He openly states he wants a majority so he doesn't have to deal with the opposition. He prorogues whenever it is convenient and suits his needs. He forces people out of their jobs when they don't toe his line.
Canada's prime minister (I would say "our" but I no longer recognize his authority) has ZERO interest in democracy. He has shown time and time again that he will do everything in his power to exert fascist control over Canadian policy.
Who voted this dictator wannabe in, again? Next time, before you mark the x next to his name in your ballot, you may want to just shoot yourself in the foot first. Might as well make it literal as well as figurative.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/20...afghanistan.html#socialcomments#ixzz1561ahAf2
Canada's prime minister (I would say "our" but I no longer recognize his authority) has ZERO interest in democracy. He has shown time and time again that he will do everything in his power to exert fascist control over Canadian policy.
Who voted this dictator wannabe in, again? Next time, before you mark the x next to his name in your ballot, you may want to just shoot yourself in the foot first. Might as well make it literal as well as figurative.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/20...afghanistan.html#socialcomments#ixzz1561ahAf2
As opposed to that last guy that doesn't pay tax in our country or the guy before that set up government funding for property he had a financial interest in. They let you vote for things though, first, then screw everybody. I don't like Harper. There's no denying that but what's the alternative? A guy that isn't even a Canadian that supported the Iraq war. A disingenuous sloth.
Absolutely.
As well, this was already approved by Ignatieff anyway, so they have a clear majority.....it would be a mistake to put it to a vote, as that could be seen as precedent......and the last thing we need is public scrutiny of every troop movement.
I agree but it doesn't change the fact that Harper is a dictator with small dick syndrome, but ya, we don't have much to choose from.
It is written, (hehehe) that in a time of war, and the two major parties have involved us in a war,
that the cabinet can make such a decision and even extend the military role if they want to.
What really troubles me is the number of Canadians who go to the polls to vote Liberal, or
Conservative, or New Democrat, that have no idea what they could be voting for or against.
All too often people vote thinking that there has to be a vote on each major issue, that comes
up or democracy is not served. This is not so, we elect people to make decisions for us once
we have given them a mandate. It is the voters responsibility to vote for responsible policy, and
to determine who is least likely to lie once in power.
There are a lot of people who engage in electoral fantasy believing they have a vote on everything.
that the cabinet can make such a decision and even extend the military role if they want to.
What really troubles me is the number of Canadians who go to the polls to vote Liberal, or
Conservative, or New Democrat, that have no idea what they could be voting for or against.
All too often people vote thinking that there has to be a vote on each major issue, that comes
up or democracy is not served. This is not so, we elect people to make decisions for us once
we have given them a mandate. It is the voters responsibility to vote for responsible policy, and
to determine who is least likely to lie once in power.
There are a lot of people who engage in electoral fantasy believing they have a vote on everything.
Oh yes, we know we don't live in a direct democracy. But, one would think in a minority Parliament, our "representatives" would have been given the privilege of debating the gravitas of war rather than being dictated to by Privy Council.
This is not a done deal. The opposition parties have the numbers to for a motion of no confidence on the issue. Then it would be a question of whether or not Mr. Harper would wish to have an election in which keeping troops in Afghanistan is the main issue.
Pay attention.
This has already been cleared and approved by both wings of the Liberal Party....Bob Rae and Ignatieff.
Apparently Spencer does not subscribe to the school book theory that we do not vote for the PM. Despite the theories about parliamentary democracy most of us take the leader into consideration when we vote for our MP. I confess that I voted for the cons because iggy is a fool and the cons promised to eliminate the long gun registry.
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess, as Norman Spector says, that depends on the media and Opposition.
Will Harper get away with misleading Canadians? - The Globe and Mail
This entire supposed issue is a bunch of nonsense.
It is entirely the prerogative of the executive to mobilise the Canadian Forces; His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada, commands the Canadian Forces on the advice of Her Majesty's Government for Canada. The Parliament of Canada has no involvement in relation to the Canadian Forces, other than to approve the annual budget. If Parliament does not approve of our current involvement in Afghanistan, then Parliament can reject the next budget.
No parliamentary vote is, or ever has been, required to deploy the Canadian Forces, or to extend our presence in an intervention. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, made a huge mistake when he asked the House of Commons to approve our stay there until 2011--he abdicated executive authority, and the authority of the Crown, to the House of Commons, and he should be condemned by both sides of the political spectrum for this. He's established an uneasy precedent of parliamentary involvement in deployments, and we should now make all possible efforts to distance ourselves from this.
It is entirely the prerogative of the executive to mobilise the Canadian Forces; His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada, commands the Canadian Forces on the advice of Her Majesty's Government for Canada. The Parliament of Canada has no involvement in relation to the Canadian Forces, other than to approve the annual budget. If Parliament does not approve of our current involvement in Afghanistan, then Parliament can reject the next budget.
No parliamentary vote is, or ever has been, required to deploy the Canadian Forces, or to extend our presence in an intervention. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, made a huge mistake when he asked the House of Commons to approve our stay there until 2011--he abdicated executive authority, and the authority of the Crown, to the House of Commons, and he should be condemned by both sides of the political spectrum for this. He's established an uneasy precedent of parliamentary involvement in deployments, and we should now make all possible efforts to distance ourselves from this.
Last edited:
I see, Petros, that FiveParadox argues that the Crown makes us too stupid to embrace democracy!