Keeping it Real…

Keeping it Real… header image 2

Harper’s Dictatorship Creates Revolutionaries …Within

April 1st, 2013 · 28 Comments

To many, “conservatives” are people who, by definition,  favor less government, fewer regulations and policies that encourage entrepreneurship leading to  profitable business models.   But conservatives, in the words of Wikipedia, also promote retaining “traditional” social institutions and philosophies.

Like democracy.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s governing style sure doesn’t reflect that! More a supreme dictator, as I’ve written repeatedly on this blog.

Now even his own Members of Parliament seem to agree.

Conservative MP Mark Warawa representing Langley and MP Leon Benoit of Alberta had apparently had enough … and spoke out PUBLICLY, rebelling against party discipline that prevented him from raising in the House of Commons an issue he felt deeply about:  and,  Warawa appealed to the Speaker to intervene in what a called a “breach of his privileges as an MP”.

Wow!  Serious stuff!

The statement he wanted to make reportedly surrounded a motion he wanted to propose calling on the Commons to condemn sex-selective abortions.  But, in my view, the issue is irrelevant: it’s the fact a TORY MP feels MUZZLED by Harper and is  now willing to speak out.

And other Conservative MPs are joining the chorus of discontent.

Kitchener Tory MP Stephen Woodworth suggested the independence of MPs and their right to comment on issues was being affected; Edmonton Tory MP Brent Rathgeber called it “an issue of democracy”; and, Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinoge and Edmonton MP James Rajotte pointed out MPs in Britain are allowed more freedom to speak their minds.

This is big stuff: for seven years as Leader, Harper has ruled with the help of a harsh Parliamentary Whip  … maintaining iron discipline and smacking down any hints of open dissent … and not just on matters of confidence.

His Majesty is no doubt NOT amused!

But these rebellious Tory MPs are Canadian heroes.  I have no doubt that, in the course of time, Harper and his henchmen (or should that be henchpersons?) will get even, through perks and privileges, shunning and perhaps even trying to mount opposition in their ridings if they seek re-nomination for re-election.

However, their revolutionary defence of democracy and Parliamentary privilege could lead to change … IF they and others within the Tory caucus continue to stand up and push for freedom of speech and freedom to express THEIR true opinions and those of their constituents.

And they are also setting a wonderful example for all the lemmings in the other parties as well ….  MPs who zip their mouths soon after being elected and unzip their own wallets to start filling them with the cash, perks and privileges  … while turning their backs on their own provinces/constituents’ interests to “go along” with their parties’ “national interests” …  ie.  policies to win votes in Ontario and Quebec.

Every MP should have the right to speak his or her mind, even if we … and the Prime Minister … don’t like what they have to say.

Harv Oberfeld

Tags: National

28 responses so far ↓

  • 1 CGHZD // Apr 1, 2013 at 8:15 am

    Looks like Harper has already lined up his hoods to bring all the lemmings into line gain. A little talk with the fuhrer and all of a sudden he’s considered the greatest leader since Attila the Hun.
    So much for parliamentary freedom of speech.


  • 2 13 // Apr 1, 2013 at 9:36 am

    This all sounds great and would be a change for the better if only it were likely to happen.
    Maybe my memory is not what it should be but can you tell me which past regimes in Canada allowed their members to colour outside the lines.

    (Response: Have you already forgotten Sheila Copps (Lib), Garth Turner (Conservative), Tom Wappel (Lib)?? Harper has shut down his own MPs and federal officials, scientists and experts for so long and so tightly … it clearly seems “normal” and excusable to you. Shame! Shame! Government MP solidarity under the Parliamentary system can be expected on motions of confidence…but surely they need not ALL be silent caucus lapdogs for government to work??? h.o)

  • 3 G.J.W. // Apr 1, 2013 at 9:48 am

    All of those henchmen who have rebelled against Herr Harper, will knuckle under. Harper’s Cons are spineless, shameful, gutless wonders. They are Harper’s enablers. How anyone with, any self respect, decency, ethics and morals, can support a monster such as Harper, beats the hell out of me.

    Harper’s behavior is extremely bizarre. No-one in their right mind, would destroy their own country. Yet, Harper and his enablers, are doing just that. Shame on them, giving Canada to Communist China.

  • 4 workforfun // Apr 1, 2013 at 9:50 am

    Rule by fear and intimidation – this seems to be the hallmark of Harper.
    Keep the public dumb and uninformed – that way they will never know the real problems. Hhhhhm, what a way tp gp.
    Kill the research on fresh water lakes after four or five decades !
    Close lifesaving Coastguard stations !
    Pull out of UN organiztion on Deserts and Droughts !
    Waste one billion dollars on G20 meetings.
    Give $14,000,000 to Jordan but refuse to help Canadian War Veterans !!
    Publicly ask for and welcome two Chinese Panda’s , but totally ignore First Nation youths having walked 1,600 km to Ottawa to bring attention to environmental issues !
    Insult and slap Canadians in the face for political gain and corporate gains!

    What is happening to Canada – Harper is nothing short of a Dick-Tator reminiscent of those from Europe and South America !

    Slowly but surely Harpers day are numbered. There will serious social consequences to this bizarre behaviour by Harper and their secret agenda’s.

    China will extract is pound of flesh – that you can be sure of.

    Canada for Canadians – what would our ancestors say if they knew how the country is going to the dogs (or dragons).


  • 5 chuckstraight // Apr 1, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Competely agree. My own MP merely sits in Parliament like a good boy, doesn`t ask questions, or say anything. When asked something from constituents- send a form letter explaining party policy.

    Democracy? Never had it in Canada.

    (Response: If so … in your view … then shame him or her! Who is it? h.o)

  • 6 workforfun // Apr 1, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Fresh off the press


  • 7 Larry Bennett // Apr 1, 2013 at 11:41 am

    I suspect most here don’t really want to see justice for the unborn, but know that if the Conservatives give any credence to Warawa’s request, it could mean the alienation of female voters and those men who are most affected, those between the age of 19 and 35. However, latest surveys have shown that many Canadians are leaning to the concept that there really should be some kind of law on the matter of abortion. After all, Canada is one of the few countries in the free world that has no (that’s “0”) law as regards abortions, — uh, except that is for the creation of bubble zones in certain cities that prohibit the democratic right to protest what goes on inside these little “chop-shops”.

    (Response: MPs are elected by their constituents to speak on their behalf in the House: not to follow the leader like a sheepdog. They should be allowed to express their honestly held views …and if their constituents don’t agree, they can throw them out next time around. There is no excuse for forbidding ANY MP from talking in the Commons…. in a democracy. h.o)

  • 8 DonGar // Apr 1, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Harv, Can you name me one political party that doesn’t mussel their back benchers?

    (Response: Read my response to “13”. Of course, leaders and caucus whips try to shut up anyone not parrotting the party line, but is that what we elect? It is perfectly possible in a mature Parliamentary system (check the press stories on the UK House of Commons) to speak out on an issue an MP feels is important without being sent to political Siberia. For some reason in Canada, we have not only tolerated ..but by the resignation expressed in your comment, even encouraged our MPs to only speak what and when they are told. That’s what makes the “heroes” who stand up so special and why I admire them so much ..even if I disagree with the position they express. h.o)

  • 9 Scotty on Denman // Apr 1, 2013 at 4:53 pm

    Harper knows this: any party that might run on an anti-abortion platform would not elect a single MP, not a one; it follows that he sees no benefit in including this issue in the Conservative’s broader platform. I rather doubt he cares a whit whether Canadians brand him a “muzzler”. Instead he probably informed the “revolutionaries”, “Canadian heroes”, as Harvey calls them, that if they persisted in bucking party rules he would not sign their nomination papers in 2015, at the very least, and at worst might boot their revolutionary asses out of caucus. From that vantage they could avail themselves of the right of “free speech” they’ve always had as MPs. The latter option seems to have been offered effective immediately, judging by the sycophantic back pedalling on display after the matter was dealt with in caucus. The rebels couldn’t seem to heap enough accolade upon Harper, “Greatest leader in Canadian history,” they said; the day before he was a big, bad meanie.

    Righteous indignation over party discipline is trite. All MPs are as free to speak their minds in parliament as their constituents are in electing or re-electing them. It is, however, dishonest for any candidate to endorse a party’s platform but change position once elected under that party’s banner. In the Conservatives’ case the leader’s prohibition against raising the abortion issue has been expressly stated on numerous occasions. If a candidate feels so strongly about raising this issue, the opportunity to do so under another party’s banner (or as an Independent) has always been available. Anti-abortionists have one big problem: they can never get elected on this issue so when they use the Conservative party’s financing and organization to then sneak their hitherto covert views into parliament, they are in effect being undemocratic, they want to pass laws only a small minority endorse but which would affect everybody.

    Yes, yes, everybody loves to grumble about the “party system”, whipped votes and overbearing leaders but our parliamentary system (real in comparison to the “party system” phantom) could hardly work otherwise because the GG needs to be confident a majority of MPs will vote in a block to ensure legislation passes (the alternative is calling an election). The leader of the party that wins the most seats can hardly give that assurance if any number of his or her MPs can buck party discipline any time they feel like it. Neither does it help to run on a platform of allowing free votes on any or every issue: a party that wins a minority under such a platform might still get passed over by the GG in favour of a coalition that simply ensured consistent use of the whip. But in no case are MPs prohibited from speaking their minds in parliament.

    Don’t get me wrong, Harper’s done plenty of undemocratic stuff (proroguing to avoid losing a confidence vote being but one example.) But giving restive MPs the option of putting up or shutting up isn’t one of them. The rules were plain for every Conservative candidate when they sought nomination under that brand; if they want to change the deal, it is right to let them do so under a more appropriate banner, another party, say, or as Independents…Awww, can’t force Canadians to do what those fringe candidates want them to do that way…?…Harper already knows this and so do most Canadians, Conservative or not.

    (Response: You’ve totally twisted reality on this one in your effort to defend Harper. The current rebellion has absolutely nothing to do with an “anti-abortion” platform for the party. It’s simply about an individual MP’s RIGHT to express his or her views or those of his constituents. To suggest it’s okay for a party to manipulate the rules to deny MPs the right to speak in Parliament, after being duly elected, is horrible. Harper is Prime Minister, not the Supreme Ruler. h.o)

  • 10 Claudia // Apr 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Thank you “Scottty on Denman”. Well said. I was reading down to see what others had said and found your refreshing comments.
    PM has made his points clear. Thank goodness and as a Conservative woman whole heartedly support his point of view.

  • 11 e.a.f. // Apr 1, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    All these M.P.s have to do is sit as independants. They hven’t, the won’t. They want to stay on the job for the money and benefits. If they truly were committed to their beliefs they would sit as independants.

    these M.P.s must be idiots if they think stevie slime is going to allow them to speak about things he doesn’t want them to. stevie has been shutting down anything which speaks against him or his beliefs ever since he got elected, one group at a time. These M.P.s went along with all of it. You reap what you sow.

    (Response: But WHY should an MP …who supports 99% of a party’s platform and ideology …have to quit and sit as an independent just because he or she wants to speak out on a topic of personal prinicple???? Does that fit YOUR definitions of democracy and freedom of speech? h.o)

  • 12 Barry // Apr 1, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    The way things are now reminds me of those good ‘ol days of the Soviet Union or today’s China where the dear leader speaks to the politburo and the assembled members all stand up and clap in unison.

    And don’t forget all those scientists and civil servants who must be muzzled lest they say something that doesn’t jive with the approved orthodoxy…

    (Response: What’s even more scary are how so many Comrade Citizens (of all the parties) DEFEND the dictatorship styles of their leaders … because POWER is now rated higher than DEMOCRACY or PRINCIPLES! h.o)

  • 13 Diverdarren // Apr 1, 2013 at 6:11 pm

    Harvey, I think you have ulterior motives to your new found praise of these ” rebellious Tory MPs [being] Canadian heroes’.

    You want your readers to think that this is about Harper’s need to be supreme ruler and crush free speech, and not about the promise by Harper to not open the abortion debate? A debate that would be ruinous for the Conservatives come next election. I’m sure Harper is well aware that to continue to have a majority he will need to rein in his socially archaic MP’s. I’m also willing to bet that you know that too.

    You have said in the past you would like to see the Conservatives reduced to minority status; haven’t you?

    It looks a little bit disingenuous. You surly realize that if your wishes were to come true and the MP’s you mentioned were unmuzzled they would get on their abortion soapbox and promptly end the Conservatives majority come next election. Bringing your first wish to come true, a minority government.

    You’re right, Harper is not the supreme ruler of Canada, but he is “supreme ruler” of his party. If MP’s want to speak as independents that’s fine, just let them run as independents. The cost of running under a party banner is that you must tow the party line.

    (Response: It’s actually quite amusing: as soon as I write something ctritical of “their” side or “their” guy, the stalwart partisans accuse me of hacing some alternative agenda ..promoting the other side. NOT! It was not ME launching the latest topic …criticisng Harper’s ironhanded rule this time: it’s his own MPs …several of them now!!! There’s a BIG difference between Harper, as party leader, refusing to allow another abortion debate in his own party or caucus and MANIPULATING the rules to prevent an MP … any MP ..from speakling in the Commons on anty topic. As far as maintainibg power, you should be very oncerned at how Harper has mis-handled the matter, doing more harm to his repuation than good; he should have allowed this backbencher to make his remarks … in the House …well after Question Period, when almost everyone else has left the chamber. It would have passed barely noticed and Harper could have even come off as a hero himself, saying the MP was entitled to speak his piece as an individual in Parliament. Instead the leader has just added to his already-miserable reputation and image as a dictator who muzzles everyone he can …unless they parrot the party line. h.o)

  • 14 kootcoot // Apr 1, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    Harvey, you seem to mis-intepret comments, or .miss the point, blinded by your own views (i.e. anyone against pipelines is against progress, shouldn’t get to drive a car and must be a enviro-fascist against folks having jobs).

    I hardly think Scotty on Denman is a Harper fan who would have “totally twisted reality on this one in your effort to defend Harper.” In fact I doubt he would lose a moment’s sleep or miss a party if the Treasonous Stevenous was run over by a bus and a semi. Claudia who also missed the point would be dressed in mourning for a decade.

    Scotty was merely pointing out the realities of how Parliament has deteriorated into a pretend body of serious discussion and meaningful debate little more than window dressing for a democracy rapidly becoming as democratic as the People’s Republic (of Steve’s masters) China

    How were you able to ask the right questions back in the day? I am pleased that you are so open to conflicting positions on your comment board and pleased when you reply to mine, but then disappointed when, as often happens it is clear you didn’t understand what I was trying to say and I don’t think I am always that inarticulate.

    (Response: I do understand …just disagree … which, until Harper forbids that too … is still my right. I’ll be VERY clear..I will always oppose ANY politician who tries to deliberately shut out debate and deny ANY dissent in their own caucus … whether Harper, Mulcair or whoever’s leading that other party … h.o)

  • 15 G. Barry Stewart // Apr 1, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    A few weeks ago, I got a call from my MP (Mark Strahl’s) staff, wondering: “In your opinion, how is the Conservative Party doing?”

    It seemed odd that I’d get a call out of the blue, mid-term, but I went with it.

    I told the woman that I didn’t like the secretive way they operate, including limiting questions from news reporters.

    She said she would pass on my concern… so expect a big change in the coming months, LOL! (Maybe every little bit helps.)

    (Response: VERY interesting. I’ll tell you they DO listen and monitor etc. Why else would they spend a lot of time and resources canvassing hundreds even thousands of people! Because parties know that, whatever they do … no matter how bad … they will always get their Pavlovian support from partisan supporters: however that is RARELY enough to win or keep power. It’s the rest of us …with independent minds …who really count, and they DO want to know what we like and what we don’t! That’s why I always tell people to write/phone their MPs about issues that bother them (like those I raise on here)… it’s all written down …and you may think you’re alone …BUT they may get many calls/notes like yours and they know that’s equates to just a fraction of those who fel the same way. Great that you struck a blow for openness and the public’s right to information/answers! h.o)

  • 16 judi sommer // Apr 1, 2013 at 10:35 pm

    Hi Harv,
    Your piece very nicly paralleles one of Andrew Coyne’s recent columns where he looks into the entrails of this very scary party that has basically re-written the rules of parliamentary protocol and process.Harper has made the Speaker into a enunich, muzzling him and giving him his marching orders as to what is allowable.That is the part that should truly frighten us .Harper is trying to remake hundreds of years of parliamentary rules into his own vision.He would do well to remember(did he ever study British history?) that a king was beheaded for over-reaching his mandate. I am no Tory in the Harper mold but what would it take to have these disgruntled backbenchers cross the floor to become independents? Has their fear of Herr Harper (and I use this moniker without irony or hyberbole) become so profound they will go to ground?

    (Response: History has shown, federally and provincially, that some DO move to sit as independents on matters of conscience. I respect those who do, but I resent that they should have to do that just because they disagree on a particular issue. Surely our system is strong enough to accommodate varying open expressions within, esp when there’s no confidence vote involved. h.o.)

  • 17 Larry Bennett // Apr 1, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    I wonder Harv, if these daring M.P.’s are heroes because they risk censure, or because their cause may be heroic also? Then we have ole Diverdarren wanting to “bully” these courageous people by calling them socially archaic! I may have to protest Mr. Harper’s stance by forgetting to put a cheque in those little envelopes I keep getting. But, he would still get my vote, because the other parties are whipped to shreds for daring to back any initiatives such as Mr. Warawa puts forward, even though their constituents have sympathies in that regard.

    (Response: My own position on their right to speak has nothing to do with their cause. I may even disagree with them …BUT MPs are elected to speak for their constituents, not the PM … and although I recognize party discipline is required on major votes og confiedence etc., we have cheapened our democracy by enforcing silence on so much more. h.o)

  • 18 Diverdarren // Apr 2, 2013 at 8:14 am

    I thought this was about keeping it real. When Steven Harper made his pitch to the Canadian people, asking for their trust, he promised on behalf of the Conservative party that “A Conservative government won’t allow the abortion debate to be reopened in Parliament, because it’s “not the priority of the Canadian people,” (CBC News April 21, 2011)

    Canadians believed him and gave him a majority on May 3

    Candidates like, Warawa and Bruinoge ran under the Conservative banner, meaning they (at the time) supported the promise that Harper made on behalf of Conservatives. They were elected by their constituents with that promise in mind.

    Harvey, now you are saying that they have a duty to represent their constituents. What of Warawa and Bruinoge commitments to support the Harper platform that they were elected on. They should have been true to their convictions at the time they ran for office. I won’t criticize Harper for making his party members keep the promises made to the Canadian people, the promises that got them elected.

    The only reason to support these dissident MP’s is to create dissension in the Conservatives. I don’t think it has anything to do with free speech, I think pressing for the un-muzzeling of these social conservatives by liberals is a political rouse to divide the right.

    And yes L. Bennett, I want to see the dissidents bullied back in line with the fiscal conservatives, and their social conservative principles buried where they belong. If these MP’s are allowed to go rouge and crusade for their anti-abortion, anti-gay ideals they will put the Conservatives back into the opposition.

    Or did you miss what the tea-partyers did to the Republicans in the last US election?

    (Response: Good point about his platform promise. But this goes further than that: it is not about party policy … it’s about Harper’s governing style getting worse … to NOT allow now any dissension or even discussion at all ..even as private members. This is a change since he achieved his majority, on top of his cutting off questions to officials from the public and media. EVERY Canadian should be concerned about all this ..even TRUE conservatives. h.o)

  • 19 cherylb // Apr 2, 2013 at 9:05 am

    A bully can only remain a bully if he’s allowed to. I have great faith that this is only the first trickle in a coming torrent. Many of these MP’s go home and face angry constituents. Harper’s day of reckoning is drawing closer.

    (Response: Could be …because Canadians are watching and are becoming more aware of his dictatorial style … esp when his own MPs start to rebel. But the big point he still has going for him are … the alternatives. Mulcair is going nowhere with MOST Canadians and the Libs are still floundering. h.o)

  • 20 Larry Bennett // Apr 2, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Harvey, it is all a matter of degree, as the great statesman Edmund Burke said, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement ; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. Some people have been known to say one thing prior to being elected and another later. Mr. Obama is a fine and most recent example on the matter of SSM, as is that other great Democrat, who, when it seemed propitious, guided to fruition the Defense of Marriage Act, only now to have a “change of heart”. What else would you expect from this family wrecker? Who doesn’t recall everyone striking their breast and asking why, oh why did Svend steal the ring? It was because he was a thief and that is what thieves do. A fellow I know keeps saying “big deal, he stole once in his life and he is vilified forever”? No,no my friend, he was stealing from us when he was living in co-op housing whilst on an MP’s salary. I don’t think you will find Harper refusing to sign Mr. Warawa’s papers anytime soon.

  • 21 Frank // Apr 2, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Page 144&145 of Harper’s new 2013 budget has weasel words that say the government can grab your savings to provide a bail-in to the banks ala Cypress.
    Don’t say you weren’t warned. Harper is a friend to the too big to fail banks.

  • 22 D. M. JOHNSTON // Apr 2, 2013 at 11:23 am

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Herr Harper is a religious wing-nut, kept in power by 50% of the population who did not vote. This, I think is the new political strategy by all the major political parties, make the election a crap-shoot.

    If you make politics so distasteful, so ugly, the voter will ignore elections because they feel that all politicians are corrupt or in the game to benefit their pals.

    All the political parties are tainted by the same brush, Libs, Cons, and the NDP. Give me a politician who will run under the banner “let’s clean up Ottawa, lets make Canada truly democratic.”

    Nope, nada, not a chance.

    Look at BC, the NDP are just salivating to win the next election so they can shower the lolly on their friends – read; “Vancouver is going to get a $4 billion subway under Broadway!” and to hell with the rest of the province which will lose schools and hospitals to pay for Vancouver’s transit bauble.

    Dix is weak as water as he will not change the way we run things and when the public get tired of the NDP’s shenanigans, they will again suffer the same fate as 2001 and another dictator will run the show, enriching friends and insiders.

    Sadly, we live in a Soviet style democracy, where the voters are trundled out to vote, electing another dictator for the next 4 years, while pretending that we are a true democracy.

    This all reminds me of an election sign I once saw, “Don’t vote, it only encourages them.”

    Oh yes and Herr Harper, he will suffer the same fate of our other PM’s who stayed on, even when the stench of being well past his or hers “best buy date” and leave the party in tatters.

  • 23 e.a.f. // Apr 2, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Because some times if you can’t change an organization from within, you do have to leave. It has to do with personal integrity. Freedom of speech is not always “free”. There are times when it cost you something, to say what you want. If you believe in it strongly enough, then you are willing to pay the price.

    Democracy is about the will of the majority but not to the detriment of the minority. It is about each person having the right to vote as they see fit.

    I don’t agree at all with what stevie is doing but he has been doing it for some time. Surely an M.P. ought to know that at some time they are not going to agree with a leader of their party and will have to make a decision about what is truly important to them.

    Many people hve broken with their political party over one issue. Its part of the democractic process. If someone believes polticial parties are always about democracy they need to give themselves a shake. The first order of business for a political party is to get into power, the second is to stay in power. No political party is going to permit a member to stand up and say what they want if it will cost the party a great many votes. That is how it works in our country, for good or bad. If you want to change it, you will have to do so at some expense. There is no thing as a free ride. You sign on with a political party, they aren’t interested in what you personally want to stand for, its about getting elected and having the party’s agenda promoted.

  • 24 Persey // Apr 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Several commenters have referenced adherence to party platforms at election time as a reason to keep quiet on the abortion issue ( could be any issue but this one is being discussed here).

    Where is it written that a party must adhere to its pre-election platform when it comes to governance?

    Or have I just lived in British Columbia too long?

    (Response: Actually, there is NO legal requirement that a party keep any of its promises … voters have been violated repeatedly, from no wage and price controls to no HST. But, as Gordon Campbell can testify, the voters will only stand for so much deception, esp when it hits them in the wallet. h.o)

  • 25 Larry Bennett // Apr 2, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    The Dix Delusion

    Twas the dirty thirties,
    Men rode the rails for free;
    And that’s okay for certain blokes,
    But not for you and me.

    Still, they are like to ‘forge’ ahead,
    For they’re a special breed;
    And all the bums will vote for them,
    They have the self-same creed!

    And while my rhyme is reaching for,
    And ending to transfix;
    Just let me say, with some dismay,
    They are a bunch of Dix!

    I think it essential that we make note that Oscar Wilde his self has proclaimed that even a bad poem, is sincere.

  • 26 Crankypants // Apr 3, 2013 at 12:13 am

    The fact of the matter is that our acceptance of the status quo regarding our governance guarantees that we will be led by a dictator of one political party or another. Some leaders are just better at controlling the lesser lights. In the end they fall back into line or find themselves cut loose to fend for themselves.

  • 27 workforfun // Apr 3, 2013 at 6:00 am

    Canada’s muzzling of scientists on BBC website

  • 28 R // Apr 4, 2013 at 9:42 pm

    Recent bid rigging and 5 million fine

    And bc ferry still has snc contract.

    Quebec inquiry is que only based.Because c pension fund worries /caisse de depot.?