Come again? Harper appoints separatist to Senate in order to stop separatists from being appointed to the Senate

harperRemember all of the Conservatives and Conservative surrogates who claimed that a coalition would appoint separatists to the Senate chamber and that having separatists in a powerless, toothless chamber would be a grave risk to national unity?

In this latest sheaf of Senate appointments, Stephen Harper has appointed — you guessed it — a separatist who worked for the “Yes” side in the 1995 Quebec referendum.

The proud Harper Senate selectee in question is Michel Rivard.

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
-Voltaire

14 Responses to “Come again? Harper appoints separatist to Senate in order to stop separatists from being appointed to the Senate”


  1. 1 Dan 22 December, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    I sometimes think that Harper’s motto could be “It’s necessary to destroy Canada in order to save it.”

    • 2 Garyth Evans 2 May, 2011 at 11:24 pm

      Not destroy canada, harper has to destroy all the wrong doings made by liberals in the last 50 years that have destroyed the country already beginning with the biggest liar of them all: TRUDEAU, they lied and said they created universal health care, it was the sask ndp then diefenbaker tories who molded our health care system, liberals stacked the senate so even a majority con gov’t couldn’t do much, he has to appoint senators to balance power in order to reform the senate. The liberals raped western canada of its money with programs like the NEC and Nat Wheat Board not to mention the transfer payments we give out to welfare provinces like ontario and quebec. pls learn basic economics

  2. 3 SUZANNE 23 December, 2008 at 12:09 am

    While it’s technically true that Michel Rivard was part of a pequiste cabinet, when my provincial liberal candidate was running against him in Quebec City, the word was that he wasn’t terribly separatist. He joined the pequistes more because he wanted to be on a winning team (this was 1994) rather than because he was a diehard supporter of Quebec sovereignty.

    In Quebec politics, politicians change their colours on the separation/unity issue. Jean Lapierre is an example that comes to mind. Mario Dumont is another example.

    Just a thought.

  3. 4 Nick J Boragina 25 December, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    This guy ran as an Alliance candidate in 2000. That’s why he was appointed.

  4. 5 Alberta Girl 1 January, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Now, Now Suzanne and Nick- don’t let the FACTS get in the way of a good Harper bashing!

    The hypocrisy of the left over these appointments is laughable.

  5. 6 Ken Furber 2 January, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Alberta Girl:
    Who are you trying to kid. I take it from your sarcastic reference to lefties that you stumbled onto this site by accident. All I can say about your rightish take on leftist hypocrisy is it takes one to know one. If you look at the history of the beginnings of the Reform Party and statements made over the years from their stalwarts including many of the current CPC MPs including Harper you realize pretty quickly that they’ve changed their tune drastically since coming into power. And no I won’t list examples here there’s not enough room.
    And of course Harper would appoint like-minded Reform-Alliance-Conservative types to the Senate. The Hypocrisy in this case — Miss Alberta — with Harper is that he’s attacked previous Senate appointments from the Liberals as being pork-barrel politics and then turned around and done the same thing. The thing I like about you right-wing types — and especially spoiled western Conservatives — is that you don’t let the facts get in the way of an attack.

    • 7 Garyth Evans 2 May, 2011 at 11:20 pm

      Uh Ken I think you don’t get it. The only way to reform the senate is to have at the least a balance of power there and not A LIBERAL PORK BARRELING majority. Harper appoints to empty seats to create a balance so he can then begin the reform, as long as the liberals have a senate majority he could never do that.

      let’s call it politics 101 for you laymen. appoint senators with an understanding that once power is balance you will then begin reform to elect them to senate., oh yea, we are spoiled western conservatives who have their cash raped by welfare provinces like ontario and quebec who don’t have to work for a living but instead just take our money… get a life buddy and learn politics and economics before your spout your ignorance.

  6. 8 marxist-socialist 20 January, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    OBAMA WON’T SOCIALIZE AND WON’T DEMOCRATIZE USA.

    http://barefootbum.blogspot.com

    http://christian-socialists.blogspot.com

    WHAT WE NEED IS A REAL CHRISTIAN, HUMANIST, SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT WHICH WOULD BE A SERVANT OF THE POOR PEOPLE. RIGHT NOW THE POOR US CITIZENS ARE ENSLAVED BY THE US GOVERNMENT.

    WE NEED THE TOTAL OPPOSITE. WE NEED A REVOLUTIONARY-STATE WHICH WOULD DEBILITATE THE POWER OF THE RICH PEOPLE, AND SHIFT THAT POWER TO THE POOR AMERICANS.

    A GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE POORS, A SORT OF ROBIN HOOD, WHICH WOULD LITERALLY ROB THE RICH AND USE THAT MONEY FOR THE POOR, A SERVANT OF THE POORS.

    BUT FOR THAT, POOR AMERICANS NEED TO GET OUT OF THEIR SOFAS, AND COMFORTABLE LIFESTYLES AND FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN RIGHT

    WHAT AMERICANS NEED IS A SOCIALIST-GOVERNMENT, NOT A CAPITALIST-GOVERNMENT, AND OBAMA IS A CAPITALIST. AND AS LONG AS THE US GOVERNMENT IS CAPITALIST, USA WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ISRAEL.

    Capitalism in the U.S. consists of large Corps which outsource, leaving unemployed and struggling, while the owners and bankers become wealthier riding the stock market. And in foreign policy, exploiting the weaker nations for cheap labor and ownership of natural resources.

    Republican Bush II cut off almost 1 million families from unemployment insurance benefits, leaving 8 million in 2003 both unemployed and in debt, unable to find jobs, without health and child care. 43.6 billion without health care. In 2002, 34.6 million, 1 in 6, were earning below the poverty level with denial of welfare from bureaucracy, while Rep Bush spends over 30 million in program for “healthier marriage education.” Democrat Party Bill Clinton abolished the federal main welfare program to help the poor, removing 54 billion in over 6 years for those who earn less than 7 dollars an hour. Under Clinton there was a back lash against gays in the military and affirmative action, regression of gay sexual relations as a crime and the 2 millionth prisoner incarceration of U.S. citizens, mostly minorities.

    In the U.S., the small super rich own 1 percent earned what 40 percent earn annually and exploitation in foreign policy, Bush’s Iraq never turned back into “normal,” with continual death, poverty and destruction, while the years of Clinton’s sanctions and bombings have killed an untold number of innocent men, women and children, making not much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, as the U.S. has had a hand in almost every foreign war and civil war, employing both military and economic imperialism, a system of exploitation, as in McDonalds and now Wall Mart, the IMF, WTO, controlling loans and aid, outsourcing cheap labor, misery and suffering, all for the profit of the wealthy and privileged few.

    And so the Socialistic solution is that for free universal education and health care, the end of the ownership of companies by the minority wealthy class to that of equalitarian of democratic (not limited representative) which are not run by elaborate bureaucracies and the means for profit driven motives. The end of over production, layoffs and wasteful spending to increase profit for the owners denying the underpaid proletariat, government run from the bottom-up. Each ordinary person having a democratic voice and partially held responsibility. “To each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” The critics who claim no incentive, all refusing to work or take on the menial easy to do jobs, fail to recognize the human drive in passion to work in a field that truly interests them, while equalitarian economically, awarded with various honors and prestige.

    How can we create socialism within this capitalistic system, if our so-called democracy is based on electoral votes designed to keep third and leftist (all other) political parties out of the race? This along with the voting fraud of the 2000 presidential election. The entire process of both the Democrats and the Republicans are run by wealthy and corporate campaign donations buying tax breaks and deregulation’s – “corporate welfare.” This is because it costs millions of dollars to run for the Senate, the House and the presidency – Only 5% donations are from the unions, while 75% are from the wealthy and large corporation. So the politician, both Dems and Reps, needing votes, must then commit fraud and lie to the people as their representative, while catering to the wealthy. This is capitalism.

    Both parties in capitalism are corrupt in favor of the rich, as its not just the fanatic Right Wing Bush, as Clinton the Democrat broke a string of promises failing to: end gay discrimination in the military, to grant asylum to Haitians in Guantanamo Bay, to stop scabs crossing strikers picket lines and to bring health care reform. Instead he expanding the death penalty, prisons and police power and eliminate most of the welfare for the poor. With all this, the labor parties supported him because he was a Democrat – an illusion that Dems are for the people which came from Roosevelt’s New Deal, which real reason was to prevent a possible socialistic revolution, a concession from people’s pressure and still keep the wealthy protected capitalism. The same can be said in Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Civil Rights amendments; only from the pressure of the working person’s protests. To vote Dem or the lesser evil principle is not a real choice! Both parties have shifted to Right. And the judicial system is not an election from the people or popular vote. Reforms are not from the White House but those voices in the streets, the factories and the work places. Capitalism cannot be reformed, it is always designed to protect the rich and ruling class. No president has the power to go against the demands of the large Corps, who threaten to take their money out of the U.S., removing their obligation to pay taxes. And when foreign governments turn socialistic and equalitarian, the mighty U.S. comes in and destroys them either, set up coos and doctoral regimes to protect U.S. wealthy and corporate economic interests, all under the false disguise of democracy. And while reforms are beneficial and are supported by socialists, they recognize it is only by revolution, by force, that this injustice of wealth, poverty, inequality, imperialism, consumerism, lack of health care, aid and homelessness can this be changed.

  7. 9 Ken Furber 19 March, 2009 at 4:33 pm

    Hey Paul:
    My you’re quiet these days. I couldn’t find anywhere else to stick this little comment so decided the newest posting would do.
    I’ve been wondering the past while if the growing anger over such corporate scandals as AIG bonuses, especially from working-class people facing tough economic times could lead to a new surge of socialism. I’m sure they don’t use the S word but I’ve noticed quite a few comments in Internet land suggesting everything from capitalism is dead to calling for leg irons to control capitalist greed.
    When things go good, everyone is a capitalist. When things go bad regular folks starve and capitalism cruises on. Starving folks tend to question how they got that way and it doesn’t take long before they start pointing fingers of blame at fat politicians and the corporations that support them.
    Just a thought. What do you think? Is a new age coming?

  8. 10 RPJ 22 March, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    I think that there is definitely a ‘risk’ of that happening and that is why the right is hysterical with their lunatic rhetoric trying to convince the uninformed that socialism and communism are the same thing and directly related to the genocides and police states imposed by Stalin and Hitler. If there was any way we all could change the ‘risk’ into a certainty, I’d get in line to help. How about you?

  9. 11 Ken Furber 24 March, 2009 at 9:47 am

    RPJ:
    If the recent upswing in the markets is an indication the recession is drawing to an end, then I think this new-found socialist wave will disappear. However, if it lingers, Canadian’s anger will turn into action. As for whether I’d get in line to help, well I’ve always believed society should focus more on its human factor than corporate entities. No, I’m not a die-hard Red. I do believe in capitalism and entrepreneurship. However, to what end? If we focus more on unrestrained capitalism as I believe we have for the past three decades than the people who are the backbone of this country, we are making a huge error. It’s time to put the humanity back in this society. Corporate profit is good, but not at the expense of everything else. We need balance. And a healthy shot of socialism should do the trick nicely. Time will tell if that will happen this time around.

  10. 12 RPJ 24 March, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    Sounds like we are of similar views. Worst thing that ever happened to most of us was when they gave corporations the same rights as people, in effect creating corporate sociopaths. They can’t be anything else because they literaly are legislated to put shareholder profits ahead of all else. The only companies that still operate in a moral way are the mom and pop operations or at least the privately owned. The key is that they are held accountable for their actions. They haven’t had the humanity bled out of them. Even with the recent uptick in the market, I think the recession will last a good long time. In my mind the market is not as closely tied to the economy as is touted in the media. That is how we get insanely high stock prices for companies that aren’t even making a profit … like happened in the recent tech bubble (and all bubbles). Yes, they can affect each other but they are independent. People will be very disappointed if they expect everything to be back to normal once the market starts to improve. My main hope though is that this might have been a wake up call to the working class that they need to inform themselves of what is happening around them politically and economically and not rely on the elite to “take care of them”. We have the power by sheer numbers but never seem to exercise it. We are so easily distracted by the latest pop star drama or fake “threat to all mankind” like gay weddings or illegal immigration. Anything that can get groups polarized works really well. And like Charlie Brown with the football, we fall for it time after time after time. Maybe we had an excuse for this when we were all kept uneducated but there is no excuse for our blindness today. Not with all the info available on the net. For the first time in history we have access to information not fed to us by the ruling class. I don’t understand people who still want to rely on the corporate media for their info. Do they really think these folks are working for them? These are the folks who are paid to distract us with some gruesome murder or spectacular fire instead of the real news of what is going on in the world. Regimes secretly toppled, the reasons why genocide is happening somewhere, massive redistribution of wealth upwards to the elites, war dead and atrocities (real numbers not the approved ones), laws passed that take away our rights or give the elites new powers. The litmus test for whatever news source you are using is how much of the former content is presented to you compared with the latter content. We need to teach the need to inform yourself in the schools along with other life skills that will give kids the tools to take care of their own interests as adults. Of course we are still wedded to teaching them how to be good little worker bees — obedient, punctual and deferential to authority.

  11. 13 Ken Furber 25 March, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    RPJ:
    Corporate sociopaths eh? Well actually you’re not far off. I took business courses in a past life and learned corporations are considered legal entities. Of course they aren’t living entities, but they have almost as many rights. Like humans they need to feed. Their food of choice is profit. However, unlike humans they have no humanity (hence their sociopathic tendencies). They crave profit and more profit and nothing else matters. Their top executives are hired to feed the beast and feed it they do. If they don’t, it’s goodbye. The problem is with this pressure and the huge salaries that come with it, executives have a tendency to blur the line between their own humanity and the sociopath they work for. Guess what tends to win? And we see the results of that all too often in headlines and on TV all the time — especially now. Which brings me to another point you made. Corporate media. I get a hoot out of right wingers who often bitch about the Liberal media. As if there is such a thing. Large media outlets which dominate the industry are run by huge corporations (get the link here?) These businesses by their nature tend to be conservative and therefore support conservative politicians. That leads to the type of slanted crap we often see — especially during an election campaign. Of course nature always finds a way. The answer to this problem is the Internet, open minds and outspoken types. As for teaching worker bees. My son went to the same type of school you suggest. But his mom and I taught him to question everything. He’s 22 now and still does. He’s also one of the most carefree people I’ve ever met. Anyway that’s beside the point. Our responsibility as parents and neighbors and community members is to remind young people they are human and not just drones of the corporations. They get to have a happy life even if they have to go out and take it.

  12. 14 John Wright 27 June, 2009 at 1:15 am

    So, what’s your e-mail? What’s your phone number? What’s your address??

    What, you aren’t a coward are you???? Show us where you are…you have to have more than that “Paul Bernardo” lookalike picture, don’t you???

    C’mon, fess up…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Resources:

home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.

Reddit

Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

LeftNews.org

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 836,715 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: