Thursday, August 02, 2007

Harper: "One Way Or The Other"

Talk about a SORE loser, Stephen Harper can't seem to accept defeat. To be truthful, his singular zeal to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board is a tad scary:
"Whether it takes a little bit of time or a lot of time, it's going to happen,'' Harper told reporters Thursday at a caucus meeting in Charlottetown.

A Federal Court judge quashed the government's attempt to end the monopoly this week, saying the change made by the Tory cabinet in the spring was beyond cabinet's authority. Judge Dolores Hansen sided with wheat board supporters and said the change would have to be approved by Parliament.

"(The ruling) does not change the determination of the government of Canada to see a dual market for Canadian farmers," Harper said.

"I hope the wheat board will start working with the government to make sure this is going to happen, 'cause it's going to happen one way or another."

Harper did not say whether he might appeal the ruling, try to get the change through the House of Commons, or try some other method.

Wheat board chairman Ken Ritter said he understands the Tories campaigned on a promise to end the wheat board monopoly and allow farmers to sell independently.

But he said most farmers support the current system, and Harper's minority government would be hard-pressed to get support from the opposition parties to get changes approved in the House of Commons.

Sounding more like an obsessed, vindictive thug, than a Prime Minister, Harper's "one way or another" crack reveals the inner ideologue so often masked by the chasing of polls. The funny part, the government's sham of a plebsicite was so flawed, both sides can claim victory:
Harper is not swayed.

"Canadian farmers have spoken very clearly that they want to see this barley market open,'' he said.

The Canadian Wheat Board says farmers support them, Harper says they support choice, such is the case when you purposely confuse clarity, primarily because you KNOW you'll lose.

Harper's off the cuff, aggressive remarks, betray a great deal about the man, and another reason why he fears the unedited soundbite. The only relevant question, does the majority support the government action? According to our legal system, Harper needs that majority, through representation to achieve his aim. Stop acting like a poor sport, play by the rules and take it like a man. In my mind, a lot of the resistence isn't even about "choice", but the obscene tactics employed by this government on everything Wheat Board, since they took office. Removing people, stifling opinion, using taxpayer money to shovel propaganda, voluntarily skewing the questions to get a favorable result, a disgrace all around. Bully.

15 comments:

lance said...

So. True colours shine.

The whole kerfuffle earlier wasn't about "following the rules" or anything like that. It was all about being opposite the CPC.

How . . . illuminating . . . not.

Cheers,
lance

Ti-Guy said...

Don't be such a sore loser, CheersLance.

It's always been about following the rules, which the CPC, as a manifestation of its singular genius, believes in being "creative" with.

Well, it can only go so far with that, as we have seen with this government, time and time again, when yet another of its ill-conceived attempts to subvert democracy and the rule of law is shot down.

Steve V said...

lance

It was always about following the rules, something which this government never endorsed. Only a blind partisan would sanction the government's tactics on this file, it has been shameful. Harper's bombastic comments show the "true colors".

Olaf said...

Haha,

Little ornery last night, eh Steve? Not to say you don't have a legitimate point regarding how the CWB file was handled, but I think you read a little too much into the "one way or the other" comment.

Obsessed, vindictive, thug, bully, idealogue, aggressive, disgrace, shameful, bombastic, oh my. I think you forgot satanic.

If it was Dion who said that we were going to reduce GHGs 80% by 2050, "one way or the other", you'd be cheering his dedication and take no prisoners attitude, and likely wouldn't have used any of those adjectives above to deride his inherently evil diction. Just saying that the phrase itself doesn't allow us a window into Harper's soul (that is assuming, of course, he has one).

ps did you get any of my emails over the past two weeks?

Steve V said...

olaf

Bad comparison with Dion and GHG. There are legal channels, as well as ethical methods, both of which Harper, Strahl and company have failed to employ. Do you have an issue with rule of law and parliamentary supremacy? Do you not support CLARITY, on any question, with such important ramifications?

I look at this issue, the way it has been handled, as the best example of Harper "uncensored". The ideologue rears its head, and none of it is attractive. Every adjective applies, in spades. I'm waiting for the horns :)

Sorry I haven't got back to you, I just looked at that email a couple days ago. I will this weekend, promise :)

Olaf said...

Steve,

My point was that the phrase "one way or the other" is not necessarily bone chilling, even though his supposedly "bombastic" comments were a central theme of your post. "One way or the other"? What's the "one way"? And even more terrifying, what's the "other"? Shreeeeeek! Right out of a Stephen King novel, eh?

I think it would have made more sense to focus on what he actually did on this file that you found so offensive instead of suggesting that a single (and very commom) phrase itself tells us all we need to know.

Haha, thinking it over, I guess it wasn't a very substantial or thoughtful contribution on my part, more a minor and irrelevant quibble, but it's a slow day here, you understand.

Anyways, yea, I'd like to hear from you if you get a chance. We still have a number of topics left but we've been actively trying to seek out ones for the remaining. However, if you'd send me a note regarding any you may be interested in, we'd love to find you a spot.

Anonymous said...

Accountability Act, Softwood lumber, wheat board - why is everything Harper is doing falling through the cracks or have major flaws?

In such a hurry to say he's getting it done he forgets about laws, details and effects in the future?

Everything he's done so far is half-assed.

wilson said...

I wonder how the courts (and resonable Canadians) would view Western Canada forced by law (jail sentences) to sell their personal property to a federal monopoly, and Eastern Canada having the choice not to??? Federal = all of Canada.

Duceppe will support Harper in the vote.
It's gonna happen!

Olaf said...

Also Steve, just for fun, let's take a look at a recent story in the Globe about a possible cabinet shuffle, and in particular, Harper's comments:

"Obviously we'll have to make a decision on that before we reach the fall session [of Parliament] one way or the other," Mr. Harper said at a news conference. "And you can anticipate we'll make our decisions on that one way or the other fairly shortly."

That's right, he used the deeply malicious term "one way or the other", twice in one sentence. The horror!!! What deep ideological pathology does it's use indicate in this situation? :)

Anonymous said...

Nothing Stevie has done is for the benefit of Canada while everything that Stevie has done is for the benefit of Stevie.
Be it abortion or the CWB, making sure it gets to court (lets not even delve into what Stevies little tax payer funded ventures cost the country) plays to the audience he's romancing. Stevies tenure is all about shoring up finances and votes for the next election and wasting court time is part of the plan.
It was fully reported elsewhere that this little CWB ploy was tried by the Mulroney government and Stevie just simply modified the process to insure the highest form of visibility; "the little guy versus the Supreme Court of Canada" (so he didn't get to the SC, the whole thing got lots of press, right?). He knew going in the plan wouldn't fly.
Canada is the furthest thing from Stevie's heart.
Don't subscribe to the above? Then name one significant piece of legislation brought in by Fatty.
foottothefire

Steve V said...

olaf

Nice try :)

Frank Frink said...

Olaf,

I assume you're deliberately being an ass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am certain you are familiar with the word 'context'.

'Steve' can appoint anyone he desires to cabinet. he can do that 'one way or the other' That's part of our system. He may pay a price electorally if he appoints a whole bunch of non-elected cabinet ministers, but the 'rules' don't prevent him from doing that.

But uttering I'll get this thing done 'one way or another' in response to a court verdict? That's bone-chilling.

C-o-n-t-e-x-t

Frank Frink said...

Wilson,

The CWB is not a 'federal' monopoly. The federal government has no ownership of the CWB. It is owned by the farmers themselves. Changes were made to C-24 (Canadian Wheast Board Act) in 1998 to effect that. The court ruling confirmed that is indeed the case.

From the court decision:
"The Canadian Wheat Board is a corporation without share capital. It is not an agent of Her Majesty the Queen nor is it a Crown Corporation."

As far as farmers going to jail... hmmm... would that not be a personal choice of whether to follow the law or break it? Hmmm.. choices have consequences. People are personally responsible for their own choices. I am not, nor are you, responsible for the choices they may or may not make. Is that not a usual right-wing mantra - 'personal responsibility'?

Speculate all you like but that's all it is, speculation.

And btw - I'm in the West, and I'm not a 'L'iberal so spare me any keneejerks on both counts.

lance said...

Anon (ye ghods, another one) said: "It was fully reported elsewhere that this little CWB ploy was tried by the Mulroney government and Stevie just simply modified the process to insure the highest form of visibility"

The difference between the PC's and the CPC's though is the move in '98 transfering "ownership" to the farmers. (see Frank's comment) In that respect, ownership _implies_ decision making capabilities. The court saw differently. IMO the gambit was well founded and a flip of the coin as to how it would fall.

There isn't any other corporation in the world where the share holders don't have a say in the running of a company. (B and C class shares exempt that is, but that doesn't apply here)

So what we have is a monopsony, "owned" by the producer, day to day decisions done by an elected (majority) board, and strategic decisions reserved for Parliament.

A joke, really, and a recipe for producer pain.

Cheers,
lance

Ti-Guy said...

The law is the law, CheersLance. You and Harper should try to get used to it.