If anyone needs a good analogy for who Stephen Harper is; I’ll contrast with a world leader that is much more publicly known in the world:
He’s basically a Carbon Copy of Australia’s notorious Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. Except Harper is much for secretive than Abbott is.
Politically they’re pretty much identical in their ideology.
Pardon my ignorance, but who is Stephen Harper? What did he do?
He’s the Prime Minister (the equivalent of the President of the USA) of Canada. He’s been in power 8 years now.
He’s one the worst politicians that Canada has ever produced.
He blindly supports everything israel does (which is why he’s been nominated for a noble peace prize by a pro-israel group). He even actively blocked a request to treat Palestinian kids who were injured or dying in Canadian hospitals (the Ontario government and Toronto Hospitals all agreed to help).
He made Canada leave the Kyoto protocol; the only country in the world to do so.
Also under Harper’s control, environmental regulations have been slashed and the entire government’s focus seems to be on promoting the oil sands in Alberta; AKA one of the most energy and water intensive methods of oil extraction plus it is poisoning the environment and water supplies locally.
He doesn’t care about aboriginal rights in this country. He’s declined to do anything concrete about the epidemic of aboriginal women who continue to go missing or murdered in this country.
He is anti-science and muzzles government scientists from talking about their work. Most of this work is environmental in nature or related to climate change. The government has also been radically changing the National Research Council; now it only focuses on profitable science; no longer is basic research considered. Oh yeah and they defunded several world famous environmental research facilities in Canada.
The government is the only one in the entire british commonwealth’s history to be found to be in ‘contempt of parliament’. It has never happened anywhere in any of the former british colonies until Stephen Harper prorogued parliament to save face.
He’s been involved in numerous major scandals; including cheating during elections, allegations of robocalls to mislead voters and paying off canadian senators in a secret cover up.
I can’t even list all the terrible things he’s done, but here is a quick list of just what I could think of off the top of my head.
Here’s some more info on why Stephen Harper is bad news for Canada:
Why Not Harper?
I’d just like to say that although I love my country and most people in it, our prime minister, Stephen Harper is a colossal dickwad.
Lots of people have heard of the neoconservative prime minister of Australia, Tony Abbot. Harper is just like that guy except he’s been in power now for 8 YEARS.
He’s anti-science, anti-environment, pro-war, anti-women’s rights, and basically worships the republican party in the US.
He’s been involved in the only instance of contempt of parliament in the entire british commonwealth’s history. His party has been involved in scandals involving secret payments and cover ups and voter suppression. He and his party are systematically destroying this country.
Thanks for reblogging the Abbott posts. No one, not even the liberal voters (our right wing political party) support our current government. They're doing some seriously evil stuff.
Abbot’s policies and way of thinking is aligned in much the same way as Harper’s is here. It hits home. We need to vote out these terrible neoconservatives soon. .__.
Also I’m familiar with a number of issues he’s involved with. He seems like a terrible guy.
face it... harper is the best, strongest voice for canada right now. same with abbot. with all the pussy slack obama is creating we need some strong right wingers on the world stage now more than ever
Harper is just about the worst prime minister in this country’s history.
He is shaming this nation home and abroad. We’re the only country to quit the kyoto protocol. We are single handedly focusing on the tar sands for energy, despite its enormous environmental dangers. Its the only area of canada that has any economic growth. Job numbers are stagnant and have been for months; full time positions are being lost.
Harper is silencing federal scientists and telling them how they’re ALLOWED to speak to the public if they’re allowed at all. The government build up an enormous public deficit and now as a result is cutting important social services, scientific research (climate change, environmental science, etc) and public groups to recoup that loss. They don’t give a damn about the native people of this country and have denied every effort to do anything about the violence and murder of women in this community.
We have been the laughing stock of the world environmentally for years. The conservatives have cheated during elections and have been involved in scandals involved with voter deception and the senate of canada. Harper is the only PM who has ever been responsible for being found in contempt of parliament by proroguing parliament.
Under harper’s rule we have lost our UN seat on the security council. His chief of staff has been changing every year because some scandal or another forces him to fire or resign people. He surrounds himself with corrupt politicians. He rams through unfair and undemocratic omnibus bills without debate through parliament.
Harper is trash. Pure garbage. He was only elected by ~35% of canadians. I could go on and on and on.
Abbot is just as bad as worse.
If we can’t get harper out of parliament in 2015, I will be sick.
A blog all about Canadian politics. Disclaimer: The author of this blog like anyone else is biased….
So last night I made a new blog all about canadian politics, as I feel this is an area that is really deficient on tumblr (canadian specific blogs in general are too). I also really want to raise awareness of what goes in politically in this country. I feel that even canadians in general don’t really pay attention.
Now that I’ve made a few posts I’ll be officially advertising it now. I’ll try to keep it as active as I can. Daily if possible. I’ll add it to my blog as a link shortly as well. :)
If you know someone who would be interested in the blog feel free to pass it on or share.
In January 2008, while working as an advisor to the Assembly of Kosovo, I wrote an article called ‘Imposing Legitimacy: The Dilemma of International Democratic Development’ for LawNow magazine. In it, I raised the question of how democratic institutions become legitimate in the eyes of a population.
Now, I’m asking a different question: How do democratic institutions lose their legitimacy?
Basically, I argued there are five prerequisites for democratic legitimacy:
A legal or constitutional basis for authority;
Impartial decision-makers (financial independence, security of tenure);
Transparency in decision-making;
Mechanisms for giving or withholding consent.
Bill C-23, the so-called Fair Elections Act, risks undermining each of these prerequisites for democratic legitimacy. It risks stripping Elections Canada of its democratic legitimacy and endangering the future of free and fair elections in Canada.
The legal basis for elections in Canada is the Canada Elections Act. Changes to this law must be taken very seriously and be based on the widest possible public and expert consultation. When I was director of parliamentary affairs for the minister of Democratic Reform in the Paul Martin government, we took this so seriously that we asked a parliamentary committee to initiate legislation on the Elections Act. While the committee did not actually do so, the request itself shows that the Elections Act is no ordinary piece of legislation.
The Conservative government is ramming Bill C-23 through Parliament with little public consultation. When Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand testified that this bill would deny some Canadians the right to vote, the Conservatives interrupted his testimony several times. Over 150 Canadian university professors have written an open letter criticizing the Bill, as have thousands of citizens. But none of this is being taken into consideration in reviewing the bill.
The last time I worked in a country where a government used its majority in Parliament to ram through changes to an election law without public input was in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2011. I never would have expected this in Canada."
— The Fair Elections Act is a global disgrace
A not-so-radical proposal: If the government wants to make major changes to the Supreme Court, the Senate, and how people are elected to the Commons, why not let the people decide? This blog post is an argument for a once-powerful, old phrase: “Let the people decide.” Yes, it may be time for an election.
It’s now pretty clear that this federal government has been trying to make some huge changes to institutions at the very foundation of this country — the Supreme Court, the Senate and, not least of all, the laws over how people are chosen to sit in the Commons.
We need more than just a spirited debate among elites about those proposals. We need a national referendum — an election, in other words. Not in 2015, but right now.
It may sound like a radical idea, but stand back and look at what’s been happening in a country that often lectures other nations and Quebec separatists about the need to obtain democratic consent for big change.
The Supreme Court, on its own power, stood in the way last week of the Conservative government’s proposed changes to Quebec’s representation on the court, for which we should be grateful. And yet the government is still making vague noises about trying to get its way nonetheless.
The Senate, also under siege, isn’t strong enough to defend itself from changes being contemplated and the Commons has now become a vehicle for ramming through whatever the government chooses, opposition be damned.
That’s no way to change the institutions of government. We’re dealing with matters on which the public, not the politicians, lawyers or even the judges, are owed the final word.
Note what we keep telling Quebec — for sweeping change, you need the consent of the governed, amounting to at least 50 per cent plus one of the population, and a clear question.
Needless to point out, the Conservatives did not win a 50-plus-one mandate in the 2011 election. Nor did they campaign on changing the nature of the Supreme Court, the Senate or the election laws.
But if Prime Minister Stephen Harper has become convinced since the last election that these changes are necessary, why not take them to the people? Not with advertising or slogans, but an actual, democratic election? Why not argue the case to the electorate?
We did it for free trade with the United States in the 1980s, because we did believe we were dealing in a nation-changing policy back then.
Surely the same can be argued in the case of proposed alterations to some of the rocks on which governance is based in Canada: the courts, Parliament and so on.
It’s the Fair Elections Act that has really put this thought into my head, though, about the need for an election sooner rather than later. How do we put the democracy into democratic reform?
Canada’s chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand , has been saying for several weeks now that this country is on the verge of changing its electoral laws in a very unusual way — unusual not just for this country, but compared to others in the world.
Normally, electoral reform is done with wide, multipartisan consent, simply because our democratic rights are so basic. (They are often why wars are fought, for instance.) But there’s been no wide consultation — much less consent — for what the Conservatives are planning.
Political-science professors, domestic and international , have joined the protest. Mayrand himself is out there on a limb. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, encouragingly, is taking the matter to the people.
But unlike the Supreme Court, which had the power to stop the changes, none of the election-law dissenters has an ability to defend the democratic institutions from undemocratic changes.
If it’s good enough for Quebec, it should be good enough for the whole of Canada. A truly “fair” electoral reform would have the consent of 50 per cent plus one of the population, based on clear questions posed to the electorate.
I know. We all got sick of back-to-back elections from 2006 through to 2011, and believe me, I’m in no great hurry to cover a campaign that almost certainly will be the nastiest we’ve seen in some time.
But voter fatigue isn’t a good enough reason to sit back and shrug as changes are made to our institutions by a government that was never asked — or asked — to fiddle with them. So, as the old saying goes: let the people decide.
Harper government’s Fair Elections Act: bad news for voters
Defenders of the proposed Fair Elections Act are, deliberately or otherwise, misleading the Canadian public about our voting realities.
Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre, for instance, repeatedly claims that one can use a treaty or student card to vote, but this is false as such ID would be rejected for lacking a street address.
The stringent ID rules of 2008 require a street address, a driver’s license with photo and address being the gold standard. However, many rural residents do not have street addresses; they have either a box number, R(ural)R(oute), or general delivery, none of which are acceptable for voting purposes. Moreover, roughly 30 per cent of potential voters – a large proportion of them seniors – do not have driver’s licenses.
A non-driver must, therefore, rely on other voter IDs. Elections Canada rules suggest a list of 25 identity cards, but most do not contain an address (street or otherwise). (I have a wallet full of these cards, but none has my street address.)
Then there are 13 “original documents” with a street address that can be combined with the above “identity cards” for acceptable identification, but they are not necessarily easily available. As a senior with house bills in my name, I have several available, and together with my passport, I can vote, but I know many others who cannot provide even one from this second group.
A few examples suffice: A utility bill is usually in one person’s name, so others of the household cannot use that. People with pre-paid cell phones have no phone bills. Bank/credit card statements are available for those who have them; many Canadians don’t have either. Correspondence issued by a school, college and university might not exist, and might not have a current address on it. Statement of government benefits applies only to those who have them. Attestation of Residence to be issued by First Nations to band members are not necessarily available, and on it goes, with the rest.
With no guarantee that a person could easily find a document to produce a “complete” ID, the famous “39 documents” that the minister talks about with such confidence, vanish into thin air, leaving hundreds of thousands of Canadians disenfranchised. Elections Canada’s own post-election survey showed that almost 5 per cent of registered voters in 2008, about 500,000 people, said “they did not vote because they lacked proper documentation.” What a difference these people could have made in the last election!