Truth And Fairness In Politics
Posted on Saturday, May 07 at 09:20 by abacus
- Alfonso Gagliano (Liberal) assails Paul Martin from his hideout in Florida and says that Martin is responsible for the future break-up of Canada.
- Some Conservative MPs hold up a magazine cover showing the main players of the "Liberal mob" in a mock movie poster titled "The Librano$".
All this would make anyone laugh if it were not downright sad. All these events illustrate beyond doubt that Canada has lost what some call "political culture."
Stephen Harper has never led a government, so, yes, no one knows what he would do if he were elected. But accusing him of having a hidden agenda - for example, to privatize Canada's health-care system - is ludicrous. Especially if these accusations are raised by Paul Martin, who has anything but clean hands. Sure, it's easy for him to deny any involvement in the sponsorship scandal, but where's the proof? From what we know at this point, he was allegedly involved.
Why should we take his word over that of Stephen Harper? In fact, there is a greater probability that Martin is lying about his past right now than there is that Harper does have a secret agenda.
Martin says that Harper is in cahoots with Ralph Klein in Alberta and that the two are secretly working on privatizing health care.
Truth is that there will be no privatization of health care as such. Harper is a federal politician and has nothing to do with Alberta whatsoever. In addition, technically speaking, Harper and Klein don't even belong to the same party (Harper is a Conservative, while Klein belongs to the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party).
Alberta's health minister also stated at a conference on health-care reform that privatization was not an issue. She says that she has learned a lot of interesting facts about privatization attempts from around the world and has concluded that privatization would increase costs and could jeopardize the quality of the system.
Allowing private providers of certain medical diagnostics is not the same as privatizing the entire system. Alberta has such private facilities, as do British Columbia and Québec. But, according to Alberta's health minister, this is pretty much as far as this whole thing will ever go.
Let the one who is free of sin cast the first stone, the Bible says. You just cannot come to the court of public opinion and make outrageous and unfounded accusations for which you have absolutely no proof whatsoever, while your own hands are dirty.
One of the principles of equity law says that you can only obtain justice if you come to court with clean hands (the "doctrine of clean hands"). Paul Martin's hands are not clean. He was involved in the sponsorship scandal - either out of choice or out of incompetence. Making wild accusations, which under the law constitute slander, will make him look even weaker, even "dirtier.".
True, Stephen Harper is an unknown entity at this point. We only know Stephen Harper as the leader of the official opposition. People are free to agree or disagree with his actions as opposition leader. But making predictions about the future, essentially sitting in judgment over a man for "offences" which he may or may not commit in the future, is silly. That would go against anything our society stands for.
You cannot arrest or sentence a person for crimes he may commit in the future. This would be unconstitutional and a violation of human rights.
Since the court of public opinion, which Paul Martin selected as his venue by addressing the Canadian people on national TV, is based on the rules of civil law, rather than criminal law, the burden of proof is one of a balance of probabilities (in other words, we don't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Martin was or was not involved).
On current balance, there is more evidence indicating Paul Martin's involvement than there is that Stephen Harper will gut this country if he ever becomes prime minister.
The Liberals have done considerable damage to this country since 1993 (morally, politically, economically and legally), and this we know for a fact. Time to give somebody else a chance (it can hardly be any worse than what we have lived through since 1993).
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on May 9, 2005]
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
The Conservatives will not come to power in the next election since people are inclined to vote Liberal for all the wrong reasons, if for no reason at all in some cases. However, if they did come to power I believe (in theory) this would force the Liberals to the left and away from the right, since a Conservative government would take away the Liberal's chance to "promise right, and govern left". By pushing the Liberals to the left, you reawaken anti-American elements that are found within the Liberal Party. As a result any attempt to "side" with the United States on the part of the Conservatives would be defeated by the combined forces of the Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc in Parliament. So I believe the Conservatives can not succeed under a minority parliament in supporting the Americans in any future situation similar to Iraq or Afghanistan, this would include sending troops. Under this kind of a scenario the leader of the Liberal Party would often be inclined to play the anti-American card to great effect, the Conservatives would risk defeating their own government and would back away as a result.
As for the Canada Health Care Act, if in a minority Parliament the Conservatives could gain the support of the Liberals in scrapping Medicare, then the Canada Health Care Act is already in danger then isn't it? If the Liberals support Medicare as is their claim, then you have nothing to worry about.
I don't disagree with you, by all indications with a majority the Conservatives would have sent troops to Iraq. In the case of Health Care, I don't think it's a question of completely scraping universal Medicare in Canada. The people would never stand for it, but if they would stand for it then you should be worried if you support Medicare. The Conservatives would almost certainly risk being voted out of office if they tried to scrap Medicare.
You have to remember what a politician promises, and what a politician does once he or she is in power are two completely different things in most instances. Just look at the Liberals. Once a party is in power the chance exists that their attitudes might change after taking on the responsibility of governing the country.
The real arguement in this country is between maintaining the current system of universal health care, as being completely funded by the government which will involve billions and billions more of our tax money being invested in a failing system. Or the alternative being based on the European model of health care; universal health care for those who can't afford it balanced with private health care for those who can afford it. An overwhelming majority of Canadians, presented with the facts would never endorse an American style health care system.
But with all the facts, they may endorse a European style health care system. The Montreal Economic Institute last year polled Canadians and found that 51% support a two tier system, again based on the European model of health care. If you oppose such a system it would be convenient for you to point the finger at those who do support such a system by claiming that what they're really trying to do is to turn our Canadian health care system into an American health care system. At least this has been and continues to be the Liberal/NDP approach.
The real question for debate is whether or not a Canadian has the right to pay for health care if they are willing to and can afford it. That's something for you to think about.
---
"I pick the bones of what's been done. I'm the revolution when the door is shut. I bite the hand that slaps me senseless. I am far too Canadian" -SotW
As for whether Canadians have the "right" to pay for health care if they can do so, that's assuming that people who are lucky enough not to be poor should be given special rights above those who are not so lucky. Let's turn the question around--if you can afford treatment for your sick grandchild, and your neighbour can't, does your sick grandchild have more RIGHT to treatment than your neighbour's sick grandchild? The point is that EVERYONE has the right to healthcare, not just those who have the money to pay for it. Also, might I point out that in Britain waiting times for healthcare got LONGER after some for-profit services were introduced, not shorter, not least of which because doctors often work in both public hospitals and private clinics. And do you really think you can afford to pay for your own healthcare? Even with private insurance most insurers require a co-pay, from you, of 20% of costs. For a bypass operation that would be about $20,000 depending on the times. And family insurance at US rates would cost about $15,000 a year.
---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
hoopoe quotes a text from 1997. People change. I am sure you have changed some of your views, as have I. I don't know what sort of things I may have supported back in 1997, but people (including politicians) have the right to change and/or correct their views.
I know that Harper no longer wants a privatized health-care system. As I stated in my article, even the Alberta health minister has discarded that idea.
Again, judging a man based on statements made eons ago is wrong. We can only judge him properly once he's been in government for a certain amount of time.
When it comes down to giving the benefit of the doubt, Harper certainly has a bigger "savings account" in that department than Martin (and most other Liberals).
People voted for pre-election McGuinty, but they got evil and lying McGuinty instead. Voters might be truly surprised to see the difference between opposition Harper and PM Harper. They might, in fact, be pleasantly surprised.
When we elected Martin last year, we also thought we might get an improved version of Finance Minister Martin (and he did do a good job back then, with the deficit, etc.). We were proven wrong. Again, we were sold a faulty product in misleading package (truth in advertising!). We never expected to get Mr. Dithers instead!
One-party rule is never a good thing. The Liberals have been in power since 1993 and it's time we got a fresh set of brooms into Ottawa. My personal opinion is that anyone at this point can do a better job than the current brand of Liberal.
minister's office BEFORE we can judge his policies?
I don't think so.
Have a look at Tom Flanagan, "The Man Behind Stephen Harper",
for a good idea of Stephen Harper's philosophy.
No rational, fair-minded leader would have such a advisor.
---
Mary
NCC - enough said. The damn organization had only one purpose - to privatize health care. Here is his own words - "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy. These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party.” (Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)
As for sending troops to Iraq someone here tries to claim they would not have done that as well! How short sighted or selective memory I don't know but here is his own words. “We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies." (Canadian Press Newswire, April 11, 2003)
There is more - “This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion… In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute." (Hansard, January 29, 2003)
Not done yet but this should remind all those who willingly forget just what Harper and the Conservatives are REALLY about - "We support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win." (Montreal Gazette, April 2, 2003)
Everything neccessary to win... yet the lemmings on the right will claim he would never have taken such a stance! People - if you are going to trumpet the Mulroney party as some sort of thing to replace the corrupt Liberals you make a mockery of your attempt to improve things. The Mulroney years were some of the most corrupt and ass-backwards years Canada EVER had and they were roundly defeated at the ballot booth for it! Or have you selectively forgotten that too?
<br />
<a href="http://www.liberalklansmen.blogspot.com">http://www.liberalklansmen.blogspot.com</a>
We whine and snivel about it all yet do nothing that reallly hurts,say like a mass percentage of Canadians withholding taxes because of all the waste. I say it is grounds enough for a tax revolt. I sure as heck don't patronise a business that takes my money and thumbs its nose at me. Why do we insist on letting the government do this?!
Don't get me wrong,I am not against paying taxes,they are needed for the "comforts we enjoy as "democratic" nation.(Iuse those terms lightly). Taxes pay for health care,such as it is,infrastructure etc. This i know,but, I will be damned if i will pay for something like the Gomery Inquiry to find out who was wrong at fault etc,etc. The Liberal Governement has committed a greivous crime against all Canada. It dosen't matter the political bent of the individual. ALL are effected.
---
A little peice of heaven is found in good deeds.
We cannot afford to give the benefit of the doubt and elect a person who almost certainly still holds the views indicated by my quotes above. If we were to do so and we lost things like healthcare, our judgement after the fact of being right about him will have little meaning. It seems to me it would be much wiser to become aware of what people actually believe in spite of what they say before giving them the benefit of the doubt and voting them into office to "give them a chance."