Vice-Regal Saint: Stephen Harper: Traitor to the Dominion
Now, I know that many of you here will have a good deal of respect for the so-called Right Honourable Stephen Harper, but let me say this: I have lost the respect I had for the Prime Minister. Allow me to elaborate.
I'm sure many of you are familiar with the political drama occuring in the Elder Dominion these days. For those of you who aren't, allow me to sum it up: A coalition has formed of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, in unison declaring that the minority Conservative government of Mr. Stephen Harper no longer has the confidence of Parliament. The coalition wishes to put forward a non-confidence motion and if it passes, which it probably will, Stephen Harper will be forced to call an election, which he probably will lose against the Coalition of the Left. Why? Because of the Bloc Quebecois. Quebec, as i'm sure all of you know, is a pretty big, pretty populous, pretty important province in the Canadian electorate. Stephen Harper has never been able to build a political base there, mostly because of the dug-in Bloc Quebecois, which tailors specifically to Quebecois concerns on a national scale, especially seperatist/sovereigntist sentiments (exploring those two terms is another topic entirely). The Governor-General, doing her duty, intervened and prorogued Parliament, basically giving the two immensely angry sides a time-out to cool their tempers.
So how is Mr. Stephen Harper using this time-out? Why inciting hatred against the Bloc, of course. He's been portraying the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition as a 'deal with the Devil', Conservatives across the country have been calling the Bloc 'seperatist scum', basically he's just been trying to turn English Canada against French Canada. Why? You may ask? Because Stephen Harper is hungry for a parliamentary majority, and Quebec is the one bastion that he will never overthrow. So his solution? Simply remove them from the equation. If his cunning little campaign of hate works, the Quebecois will feel alienated, will feel that L'Anglais hate them, and if the Bloc calls another referendum, they WILL seperate. And with Quebec out of the picture, that's 75 seats in Parliament gone right there. The loss of those 75 seats means that Parliament will be reduced to 233 seats... and the Conservatives control 143, a strong majority. To sum this up, Stephen Harper will divide up this country, which has stood united for over a hundred years, just to claw his way up on the pecking order.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why Mr. Stephen Harper has lost my respect! Any man with true loyalty and devotion to this Dominion would not divide the country just to further his own power. I think it must be said: Stephen Harper is an underhanded traitor to the Elder Dominion for resorting to such dishonourable and undemocratic means just to further his own power. It is not the will of Her Majesty the Queen for Quebec to seperate from Canada, and the majority of Canadians do not want it either. I certainly don't. And what kind of example does it set to the world if Quebec seperates and Canada is divided? To much of the world, we are the city on the hill, the example of peace, prosperity and unity to follow. What is next if Quebec and Canada part ways? Will Scotland leave the United Kingdom next? Will Northern Ireland and Wales go as well? Will all the great old empires and states be divided up by damnable nationalists, convinced that their petty differences are matters of life and death? This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the powderkeg of the Balkans, and we are all well acquainted with what the Balkans caused in 1914.
If you continue as you do, Mr. Harper, perhaps you will gain your precious majority, but you will live on through out history as the great betrayer of Queen and Commonwealth, the man who divided up the Elder Dominion, Canada's Benedict Arnold.
God Save the Queen and the Maple Leaf Forever!
-Gladstone
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
27 comments:
Did you write this piece before separatists, such as Jacques Parizeau, endorsed the Liberal-NDP-Bloc ploy, polls indicated overwhelming voter distaste for the coalition and the coalition itself began to self-destruct?
"great betrayer of Queen and Commonwealth, the man who divided up the Elder Dominion"
Are you referring to the separatists who actually do want to divide this country, who, as recently as last spring attacked Her Majesty?
Or are you referring to the Prime Minister who doesn't want to see a potential coalition government rely so heavily on the only people who want out of our Dominion?
I could not disagree more.
I had trouble deciding last week whether Harper is an idiot or a genius, it depended on what day of the week we were talking about. But I am now more inclined to the latter, and I reject almost everything Gladstone erroneously purports, though I respect his right to draw his own conclusons. I will explain when I have time in another comment or post.
Beaverbrook
I think Gladstone is wrong; one of Harper's most ardent lines in his speech was against giving power to a coalition dedicated in part to the dismantling of your country. Since that was hardly the first thought of many who objected to this grubby little Leftist ploy, and still isn't really the concern of anyone particularly concerned with it (I mean, seriously, is that the greatest and most immediate threat it presents?), it strikes me as having been a genuine concern of his. His rather lavish treatment of Quebec in office so far also suggests alienation is far from his goal.
In Canada, we do not have right and left political parties...we only have right and wrong....therefore because Harper is right, then we know what Gladstone is....wrong
Here in Blighty, more and more people are in England are coming to believe that a separation from Scotland might be desirable. This is surely a parallel between the situation of Quebec and ROC.
Now, I am a committed British Unionist, but as such I realise that the defence of the union is has no future if we do not address the issues which at long last are causing the English, not just the Scots, to have a long, hard thing about what the Union is for.
Similarly, after years of accepting Quebecois separatism as a permanent feature of political discourse in Canada, there seems to be a groundswell for the first time of separatism in the Rest of Canada. If the British example is anything to go by, you're not going to address that without accepting that, as in Britain, there have been innumerable attempts over the last few generatons to buy off the separatists at the expense of the majority and that the majority is now concluding that it would just be cheaper to let them go.
You need a robust defence of the Confederation which accomodates the needs - emotional, political, economic - of both French and English Canada.
If you don't get it, it'll be sad, but console yourselves by junking Quebec and applying to join our Union. We need your banks, you need our museums. Nuff said.
Cato
Cato: Re-union with England would bring much joy to my heart, as i'm sure you know. Unfortunately, so many Canadians here have forgotten our past with Britain, forgotten our roots. 'Tis a shame, a deep shame.
Anon: That's a very black and white view you take, and unfortunately, life is never that simple.
Well, for one thing, if the the coalition had gotten their vote of non-confidence, there would be no election. We would have an unstable government with less seats than the Tories (Liberals + NDP) propped up by the seperatists (Bloc Quebecois) with a PM who was soundly rejected by Canadians 6 weeks ago and is not even wanted by his own party. The agreement of the coalition called for no election for 2.5 years. In the meantime, the Liberal/NDP coalition are dependent on support from the seperatist BQ.
Further, you say that a majority support the coalition. Had you paid attention to the three national polls in recent days, PM Harper and the Tories would have won a landslide majority were an election held in the aftermath of this mess.
Looking at the need for a stable government, I believe the Governor General acted correctly hoping that cooler heads will prevail. Having a very unpopular prime minister backed by a seperatist party is NOT stable government. Her only other choice is to dissolve Parliament and call another election.
Again, I reiterate, the last time I checked it was the Quebec separatists who wanted nothing to do with the Queen. Not Stephen Harer.
I haven't really seen much monarchism out of either of them, myself.
À l'effet contraire, Monsieur Gladstone, was it not Paul Martin, a liberal, left wing, progressive that gained a $1.70 vote tax from you, to remove all references to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, in 2005. Alas, life is that simple.
Long Live the Queen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Credence
Again, Anon, I must repeat myself: Life is not a simple matter. I love the British Monarchy, but I know that not all monarchies have been just and good. A prime example: Roman Emperors such as Nero and Caligula. I dislike republics, but I know that not all republics are bad. The United States, while it has made mistakes these days, is not a bad country on the whole.
Paul Martin was not a monarchist, and I wish he had been, BUT I can see the good things he did for my country, such as the very successful economy during his tenure.
Life is not black and white, but a whole spectrum of shades of gray.
God save the Queen
-Gladstone
"Because Stephen Harper is hungry for a parliamentary majority, and Quebec is the one bastion that he will never overthrow."
Isn't it actually the case that Mr. Harper very nearly broke into Quebec with enough seats to win a majority, but that his foolishly-timed announcement of cuts to culture subsidies prevented this?
Gladstone, why didn't you just say Stephen Harper is a Nazi and leave it at that? My goodness, if I wanted to hear CBC spin on our latest constitutional crisis, I'd watch the CBC. I've been a semi-regular reader of The Monarchist for a few years now, and I must say this is the most disappointing thing I've ever come across here.
This really is symptomatic of the rot at the heart of our country. We've been appeasing those who want to destroy Canada (that would be the Quebec separatists--am I going too fast, Gladstone?) for so long now that when someone just for one brief moment calls the separatists what they are, it seems like the sky is falling. Refering to the separatists as separatists is "treason", no less.
God save the Queen, certainly, but may God save us too, for I fear we're past the point that we can save ourselves, when a self-proclaimed monarchist like Gladstone who apparently longs for the old Dominion of Canada thinks like this.
Andrew Cusack hit the nail on the head. Harper has never written off Quebec, indeed he has ten seats there and very much would have won many more had the cultural subsidy issue not backfired. Gladstone's baseless assertions are completely malicious and false.
Perhaps Gladstone's interpretation is as overly simplistic and blindly partisan as those of the CPC supporters here, but within his posting there is a kernel of truth.
Harper does not understand the Constitution.
We do NOT elect parties or party governments in Canada.
We DO elect individual Members of Parliament and they are free do assemble and coalesce with ANY members of any party and in any combination of other members to form a majority over all others in the House - and then form a government. This is the essence of "confidence" in the Westminster tradition.
To say that the other parties do NOT have this right is an abomination, and further indication of how republican Harper really is.
The electorate in Republican Democracies elect members of political parties to represent or act delegationally for them.
The electorate in Constitutional Monarchies & Parliamentary Democracies elect individual members who may - or may not - form parties seeking majorities over all others in the House.
Harper demonstrated his all-too-familiar American sensibilities over the past ten days.
No Tory he.
http://thechronicleherald.ca
/Front/9009661.html
For that article:
"He condemned the Liberal-NDP coalition, which is backed by the Bloc Quebecois, as a dangerous deal with the separatists — the same separatists he flirted with four years ago.
Harper gave nearly identical four-minute speeches in English and French, with the exception that he referred to the Bloc as ``separatists'' in English and ``sovereigntists'' in French — a word preferred by Quebecers.
He told voters the opposition is trying to take power ``without your say, without your consent, and without your vote.''
``At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada,'' he said, flanked by two Canadian flags.
``And the Opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen.''
In fact, every constitutional expert has said the coalition is legal and legitimate.
Opposition MPs have assailed Harper for what they called a desperate ploy to cling to power despite the fact that proroguing Parliament would preclude any major spending at a time of economic crisis.
They point out that Harper signed a letter with the separatist Bloc in 2004 advising the Governor General to consider letting the opposition govern should the Liberal government of Paul Martin fall."
Shaftesbury you make some great points. You should write an article on the subject. It was another article on here that described the move as a "technical abuse" of the system. Your points would best be used, in my humble opinion, to counter the notion of the "technical abuse" argument.
I support the Westminster system, and agree with your points. However Gladstone's article is about national unity and loyalty to the crown. The fact that Harper does not want to cooperate with the Bloc, who want to seperate from our country and Her Majesty's reign does not, in my opinion, constitute disloyalty. In my eyes it is quite the opposite.
Gladstone writes as if Harper has zero support in Quebec: "The loss of those 75 seats [in Quebec] means that Parliament will be reduced to 233 seats... and the Conservatives control 143, a strong majority."
With 10 seats in Quebec that Harper holds, he'd be at 133, out of a hypothetical 233. The majority would be 117, to which 233 is not a crushing majority. This is a factual inaccuracy I encourage Gladstone to correct.
Shaftesbury I do appreciate your comments, and I hope you publish your own thoughts on the matter.
Diefenbaker (do you know that I met the real JGD?):
I say that we must let a pox on all of them, quite frankly.
I care not one whit for any particular party in Canada these days.
I DO care for the Monarchy, the Constitution, and The Commonwealth of Nations.
Perhaps I will write such a post - but I am far too busy right now with work and the credit crisis.
I wish to pose a question, to all.
Do the members of the Bloc Quebecois, give their oath of allegiance to Her Majesty before entering the House of Commons?
CBC covered the Conservatives, NDP and Justin Trudeau from the Liberal Party, however the Bloc was only shown in their caucus room.
So, if any of you fine gentlemen are privy to this, it would settle my curiosity.
Interested reader
They must swear the Oath or they cannot sit in the House. It's in the Constitution.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=9&Lang=E
They must swear the Oath or they cannot sit in the House. It's in the Constitution.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=9&Lang=E
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/
DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=
Ch04&Seq=9&Lang=E
Harper is a villain who takes his orders from the United States and the Alliance Church, rather than the will of the Canadian people. His majority government will result in genocide as he attempts to impose an evangelical theocracy in this country.
Harper is a villain who takes his orders from the United States and the Alliance Church, rather than the will of the Canadian people. His majority government will result in genocide as he attempts to impose an evangelical theocracy in this country.
See how easy it is, Gladstone?
Lyon Fawkes, you are priceless!
Mr Chretian sorted out the Quebec separation issue shortly after the referendum in the mid 1990s with the Supreme Court of Canada.
Quebec can not separate from Canada as it was ruled illegal both in Canadian and international law by the Supreme Court of Canada.
There is no reason whatever for the existance of a separatist party, and the Canadian tax payer should not be paying the salaries of these pointless MPs that take tax payers money for trying to commit treason.
Post a Comment