 |
|
|
PHOTO & SLIDESHOW GALLERIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last updated at 1:34 PM on 09/10/08 |
Enough Traitor Talk 
Another opinion leader stands up to Danny Williams
GEOFF MEEKER (MEEKER ON MEDIA) 
The Telegram
 In an opinion piece in yesterday’s Telegram, John Maher, the former mayor of Placentia, says that Premier Danny Williams’s (right, CBC photo) verbal “assaults” on Fabian Manning are “very wrong”, and must be devastating for his family to endure.
Maher is right. Manning is a Newfoundlander. He is one of us. Yet, some people have taken to calling him a “traitor”, “Judas” and “quisling” (a traitor who collaborates with an occupying force).
Politics in Newfoundland and Labrador are heated and vitriolic, but this is something different. Something despicable. It turns my stomach.
One group, comfortably ensconced within the majority, has taken to condemning those they oppose as ‘traitors’, a crime that was punishable by death up until 1961. It’s pretty much the nastiest thing you can say about someone.
How far are we from smashing the windows of these traitors, burning crosses on their lawns and cutting them down with machetes?
Yes, I am exaggerating to make a point. But consider this: most atrocities begin with one segment of society singling out another as conniving, treasonous or inferior. I just wish we’d tone it back a little, and stop saying hateful things in the name of scoring cheap political points.
Just read some of the things that have been said lately.
Bill Westcott, writing in The Compass, referred to “traitors Norm Doyle, Loyola Hearn and Fabian Manning.”
Peter Whittle, in his Polemic and Paradox blog, wrote, “The Premier is right, Manning is a traitor.”
There was also the CBC Radio Morning Show debate, in which a Margaret Swinamer asked Fabian Manning when he decided to become a traitor to his constituents. I take heart in the fact that Randy Dawe of the NDP stepped up, saying, “in all fairness, Mr. Manning is not a traitor to the people of this province.” The audience applauded Dawe’s statement, which is also encouraging. It seems that many of us are indeed troubled that our politics have become so hateful and intolerant. (You can hear the full exchange here, in podcast form.)
I ask the people who utter these slurs: would they just as quickly lean over their fence and call their neighbour a traitor or a quisling? If so, what else would they do? How many nutjobs are taking their cue from this poison? How far are they from actually causing harm?
Where do we place the blame for this? Right at the feet of our “leader”, Danny Williams, who was one of the first to use the term. Here’s what he said in The Telegram in June of 2007.
“I can’t control traitors. People who betray their province, I have no control over that. All I can continue to do is fight the good fight and I will right up until the federal election...”
That is not responsible leadership. The premier’s intemperate remark created a climate in which it is acceptable and commonplace to use the word “traitor” on our fellow citizens.
Me, I have always been proud – never ashamed – of Newfoundland and Labrador. But this new sense of “pride” that the premier claims to have awakened in this province? It has a cost.
And I don’t buy it.
Frankly, it scares me.
In his opinion piece, John Maher complained about how the premier works to “demonize anyone who expresses an opposing viewpoint.”
This, too, is part of the problem. The premier’s attacks on whoever dares oppose him are vicious, personal and excessive.
“There is something seriously wrong with what is happening to any person who falls out of grace with the premier of our province,” Maher wrote. “There is something very wrong when people are called upon to destroy the character of their friends and there is certainly something very wrong when they readily agree to do so.
“The biggest question that needs to be asked in all of this, I think, is why are the rest of us tolerating and supporting it?”
John Maher is not the only opinion leader to speak up on this issue. No less a luminary than Rex Murphy, writing in The Globe and Mail, has said that ’Danny boy has gone too far’. You should read the entire column, but here’s a snippet:
“There are only two ways of doing politics now: Mr. Williams's way, or no way at all. Those who cross him, in what he sees as "Newfoundland's interests," are given short shrift, and none too subtly derided as working against Newfoundland. This was a Smallwood turn, and the least attractive aspect of his quite mixed political qualities…”
“This "standing up for Newfoundland" palaver is best administered in small doses, if at all. And it never fits the mouth of the person doing the "standing up." Furthermore, a difference of opinion, a clash of party interests, should never be categorized as a clash of patriotism. There is a jingoism of small places as well as of large. And Newfoundland is more susceptible to it than most. Newfoundlanders are ferociously fond of Newfoundland, but that very affection can play havoc with our judgment and our politics.”
On the day Rex Murphy’s column appeared, there was, of course, some agitated calls to VOCM Open Line.
One of them fingered Murphy as “another Judas.”
|
09/10/08
|
Comments: |
|
This Conversation is Moderated. What is moderation?
|
| What does moderation mean? |
 |
The Telegram is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.
This is a moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes to a moderator for the website. Once it has been approved, your comment will be displayed on the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.
All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Lono from St. John's, NL writes: I'm sorry to say that this situation predates Mr. Manning. I recall the Premier and his minions launching a vicious personal attack on the previous regional minister, John Efford. Loyola Sullivan as minister of finance, in particular, especially enjoyed his job as hatchetman.
For his part Loyola Hearn, as I recall, was more than happy to pile-on; he reinforced and amplified the bile from the provincial administration.
And more than a few others, including the media, casually followed the line without thinking too much about it.
I recall one day when Randy Simms (VOCM) called John Efford a quisling . I was horrified and dismayed to the point where I called his show to remind him that the term came from Norwegian politician Vidkun Quisling, who delivered his own country to the Nazis.
Regardless of his record as federal minister, what did he really do to merit being called after a man who sold out his people to the most henious regime in history?
I don't know if that call had any impact but I never heard him use that term again.
Last night on the VOCM evening show, an older gentleman called to lament the campaign of unending personal smears and attacks this election has become. He wondered what we have become reduced to?
He was right.
What good, sensible, reasonable person in their right mind would ever consent to put their name on the ballot in these nasty, negative and hateful times?
The political environment has become so frenzied, hysterical and irrational that it will take years to recover.
|
| Posted 09/10/2008 at 2:48 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
A. PENNEY from NL writes: Excellent article Geoff. If this were happening to you or I we could press charges against the people in question but because Mr. Manning is a politican he is fair game from all bullies. Very sad what the PC party has come to, it will never recover.
|
| Posted 09/10/2008 at 3:50 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Peter Whittle from newfoundland writes: Geoff:
This is a very personal campaign. Mr. Manning, Mr. Hearn and Mr. Doyle had no hesitation jumping on John Efford over the Atlantic Accord issue.
You do remember the giant web petition and the accusations. I really do not recall editorial comments asking for people to back off on John Efford. Why was it acceptable than but not now?
The Conservatives form a government, win three seats in this province. One of the commitments made in that election, realistic or not is not honored. Some of they very people who challenged John Efford vote in budget vote after budget vote in opposition to the stated policy of the provincial government and the majority of the population.
They vote for unilateral changes to the Atlantic Accord, their leader comes and tells our Premier they do not need us anyways and now we are supposed to say, hey slap my other cheek, no big deal! We knew the promise was bogus, not harm no foul! What utter crap.
The issue for Manning is that he made a decision and he now has to be held accountable for his vote. I think he is a Traitor. A person who has put his own personal interests ahead of the people he was elected to represent. He has traded allegiances.
He choose not to follow in the footsteps of Bill Casey who sided with the best interests of the region he represents.
Elections are about accountability and credibility. Manning is being held accountable. The language is personal, but lets face he made the choice and hoped the storm would pass before another election was called.
Fabian has become all I despise in going to Ottawa and becoming a mouthpiece for Ottawa in Newfoundland as opposed to an advocate of our positions in Ottawa.
I agree that it must be hard for Fabian and his family to endure. It must be tough.He made his bed. He created this problem for himself.
We will have to agree to disagree on the language and the nature of this debate. It is very much personal and the voters will make the ultimate decision, in privacy, at the ballot box.
|
| Posted 09/10/2008 at 4:23 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Darren Scott from NL writes: While I feel Mr. Manning is generally a good constituency man and traitor is a harsh word, I cannot forget Mr. Manning laughing along with Mr. Harper in the House of Commons and voting to deny us receiving what was promised by Mr. Harper.
The fact is he had a chance to stand up for all the people of Newfoundland and he didn't. I admit he is not the first nor will he be the last politician to be motivated by personal gain...a chance one day to be a cabinet minister (which is looking more and more like it will happen) I just don't like when a politician turns their back on their own province on such a BIG issue. I know in politics you toe the party line most times but this was too important an issue to do that.
If Harper had just admitted he couldn't live up to the promise but would work toward providing Newfoundland with somewhere even close to what he promised (whatever the accurate figure is) then we wouldn't even be talking about ABC and the Conservatives would likely be sending 3 MPs back to Ottawa from Newfoundland. The fact that he continues to deny he broke his promise is what makes most Newfoundlanders angry and is why he will only get one seat. Given recent polls, he might reget that decision.
|
| Posted 09/10/2008 at 4:50 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
Peter Jackson from NL writes: I couldn't agree more, Geoff. And while we're at it, can we stop calling the premier a dictator ?
|
| Posted 09/10/2008 at 6:30 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: Geoff:
This is a strongly worded post but you are to be commended for tackling this issue.
As Simon noted, the use of extremist language doesn't go back just to 2007; it goes back much further than that. I suggest that some of the threads of the argument go back to a speech delivered to Nova Scotia Tories in June 2001. Confederation is reduced in that speech to a Liberal Party plot to exploit Atlantic Canada. The mythology of exploitation has fueled some generations of a certain political bent in this province but seldom has the language associated with it been taken to the extremes we've seen lately.
Not surprisingly, Peter Whittle has offered an extensive rationalisation for this political extremist language. It's not surprising since he is one of its most avid practitioners. I counted about eight or 10 posts over the past couple of months in which Peter has used traitor and quisling to describe Manning and Hearn. He has referred to a conspiracy.
Simply put there is no justification for this sort of language. More importantly though, we should look at the political philosophy that lies behind it.
Peter Whittle's political philosophy - and he is likely not alone in the view - as he has defended it here is evidently based on an ethnic division such that there is an ethnic us that is pitted against a them . It reduces every political question to one of a right view and a wrong view not based on the merits of an argument but on the view that one view supports a particular group and a different view supports another group supposedly oppressing or occupying the other's territory for the purpose of exploitation.
Simon didn't go quite far enough in discussing quisling. Vidkun Quisling collaborated with not only the most despicable regime imaginable but with a foreign power which had invaded his country and occupied by force of arms.
And to go back to the point, you will notice that Peter doesn't care if the promise was realistic or not; he is merely satisfied that it is a goo enough pretext for claiming that Manning voted in the House as he did out of personal motives.
Beyond merely using ethnicism as the basis for his argument (wittingly or unwittingly) he proceeds to attack Manning's character and person for doing nothing more than exercising his political judgment on behalf of his constituents, as all politicians do.
Best interests is a subjective matter; it is a subject for debate and one would hope reasoned and reasonable debate and disagreement. There is nothing reasoned or reasonable in the position when one adopts the extremist and ethnicist view; Whittle and others take things to an extreme which ought to be absolutely intolerable in a modern democracy.
Of course, as you pointed out Geoff, this extremist ad hominem attack comes from people in positions of considerable influence and authority. That too ought to be intolerable out of concern for what it may lead to.
In the past four years we have seen all manner of questionable views put forward based on this sort of philosophy. People have been told they ought to be jailed for merely voicing different opinions. Some have advocated overturning the rule of law merely because a particular position was found wanting by a judge, a position which was premised in no small measure on the same sort of us and them rationale that some would use to justify extremist language.
There is a qualitative difference - a substantive moral difference - between this sort of ad hominem attack and the usual cut and thrust of political debate.
There is a radical difference between the ethnicism underlying it and the sort of stuff we see in American political ads of the Peter Jackson mentioned them in his column recently. (Incidentally, Peter J, that site isn't new. It's been around for a few years.)
This cannot be dismissed cavalierly as a matter on which reasonable people can agree to disagree. There can be no such convenient accommodation with extremism.
|
| Posted 09/10/2008 at 10:35 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Simon Lono from St. John's, NL writes: @Peter Whittle:
It was NOT acceptable then. It was NOT acceptable now.
|
| Posted 10/10/2008 at 9:45 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
John Farrell from B.C. writes: As a newfoundlander living on the mainland,I find this ABC campaign to be out to lunch.No province can expect to have its cake and eat it to.To call proud newfoundlanders,who have given years of service to their province,tratiors,is wrong.It only reflects back on the character of the person making that charge.
|
| Posted 10/10/2008 at 2:27 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Billy Hickey from St. John's, Province writes: Hi,
Hitler, Nazi, Hugo Chavez, dictator, sl?t and tyrant are just a few of the names that have been hurled at the premier and most on a daily basis. By reading the names of some of the contributors to this particular blog, I guess as long as they are being hurled at the premier they are acceptable. Right?
Cake and eat it too- Whether you like the contents of the PM's commitment or not, he made it and did not live up to it. Now, the PM is asking for our support again and in my opinion, he simply does not deserve it.
Wondering if anyone has found an article or some piece of correspondence that quotes the Prime Minister as saying during the last election that his commitment to remove 100% of non-renewable resources.... is based on the acceptance of all province as Westcott has suggested? (Because it's ridiculous)
Haven't seen anything and wondering if we didn't read the fine print?
BH
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 9:01 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: Hi Bill:
You begin by doing a marvelous job of raising a complete red herring. It's a classic of the local scene, these days. It works so well John Hickey sued Roger Grimes over something said, not by Grimes, but by the guy (perhaps you know him well?) who practices the same sort of deflection.
You don't offer example of that first herring; in fact if you actually went looking you'd find exactly the opposite of what you claimed just as John Hickey did.
Then you raise yet another red herring, namely the Harper promise. There isn't a question either as to what Harper committed to the entire country - not just NL - or that he didn't deliver. That still doesn't act in any way as justification for the extremist, ad hominem rhetoric this post talks about.
As if two red herrings wasn't good enough, you produce the third marvelous one when you ask, facetiously, if anyone had seen a condition attached to the Harper promise.
Two things follow from that:
1. There wasn't one, just as there wasn't one attached to a promise on the Metis for example made by another party leader, until after the election in 2003. What was your point on asterisks?
2. That's really not the point in any event since anyone reasonably familiar with the federal Equalization system understood the complexity of the issues involved and the extreme political difficulty in delivering on it.
Certainly many of the provincial cabinet ministers who supported Harper the last time knew or ought to have known the promise would be a very hard one to deliver.
How hard?
Well, as the Premier discovered in trying to achieve a consensus on Equalization reform with his fellow premiers after the 2006 election, it was completely impossible.
The premier had also rejected the Harper approach in 2004 and rejected in 2005/06 as well initially. (It isn't in the letter to federal party leaders, for example. The Premier proposed the complete opposite to it.)
Premiers are in a tough spot. It's one that demands a thick skin. The names you listed have been hurled (with the exception of the Chavez one and the sl?t one (what was the missing letter?) ) at pretty well all of them including the guy I worked for. Most people get beyond that superficial stuff pretty quickly. They don't obsess about it and none that I am aware of would drag it the behaviour of a few louts out as justification for other wrong behaviour.
What we are talking about in this thread is something substantively different. It's not surprising that red herrings would be preferable to tackling the substance of Geoff's points.
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 12:05 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
K Koziol from ON writes: I have lived away from Newfoundland for 23 years. Last summer I made the monumental decision to start making arrangements to move home and raise my child amongst family and friends. Recently, I have reversed that decision as the current Newfoundland political climate terrifies me. The viciousness of the open line shows, CBC blogs and certain newspaper columnists have completely turned my stomach as it appears that Newfoundland is no longer a democracy. Whether people want to openly admit it or not, the fact remains that most people are afraid to voice their opinions publicly if they in any way challenge the current provincial government. It would appear that mob mentality has kicked in and anyone and everyone who don't jump on the ABC bandwagon are considered a traitor at the very least. Yikes!
Williams reminds me of every bully I’ve ever met. Back when I was a kid, we had a neighborhood bully who delighted on picking on those smaller, weaker than him or opposed him in any way. He too had a posse of minions that would mouth off and try and incite fights when they were in his circle. In my bully’s case his reign of terror ended when he made the mistake on picking on us smaller, weaker girls one time too often. We nailed him. His mother called my father to complain. My father explained quite eloquently the size difference between us and told her in no uncertain terms what she should do with him. Needless to say, the reign of terror ended because it’s hard to take someone seriously when they take their ball and go home. It’s amazing what can happen when strong minded people decide enough is enough. A footnote to this story is that the minions disappeared when my bully lost his power. Funny how that happens. My great grandfather would say “the rats are always the first to leave the ship”.
Regretfully, I won't be there for the next provincial election when all of the MHAs that were out knocking on doors for Anyone But Conservative will be knocking on the same doors asking for a Conservative vote. It will even be more surreal should any of the losing federal candidates choose to run provincially in their hometown riding. Wow - maybe I'll book a trip to watch the sputtering and stuttering of that farce. If I were a Terry French or a Jerome Kennedy, I’d be thinking real hard on my approach to this little problem. “Yeah I know I told you that um ah the federal Liberals are great. Yes I also advocated federal NDPs but um the Conservatives are the um ah um best choice provincially.” Choke that one out of you fellas and see how seriously your constituents take your words during the next round. So I encourage my fellow Newfoundlanders to videotape their provincial MHAs as they make their rounds this weekend and post all of the videos on You Tube for the next election. One last thought - one can't help but wonder whose paying the mileage for the MHAs while they are out ABC campaigning this weekend? Call me stupid but I thought MHAs were the employees of the people and not the minions for the premier. At least that's the way it works in the rest of Canada. Peace Out.
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 1:20 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Billy Hickey from NL writes: Ed,
1) Bottomline, Geoff is not pleased with the use of the word traitor and i don't think dictator etc should be acceptable either.
2) Speaking of red herrings, it was a supreme court judge who decided the LMN did not qualify under Powley
Also, Given the complexity and extreme political sensitivity... of EQ perhaps the PM shouldn't have come here armed with his Gaelic proverb making promises he couldn't keep.
I am not an expert in eq but I know its a federal run program-not run by consensus and the feds could have kept this promise if they wanted to. When they saw the dollar figure, they broke the commitment and it appears Quebec are the beneficiaries.
BH
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 1:24 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
W McLean from Labrador, Up here writes: BH: ''Haven't seen anything and wondering if we didn't read the fine print?''
Obviously not, nor the regular-sized font, since The Big Guy seems to think that letter offered a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill unproject.
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 6:18 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Ed Hollett from St. John's, NL writes: Bottom line, Bill, is that the words you tossed out earlier are unacceptable in any civilised discussion. If you had bothered to actually check, you'd find that they were condemned by at least some of the people you took a swipe at with the comment.
Bottom line is that you took an unsubstantiated swipe.
Bottom line is that Mr. Harper and his party on one hand and the current provincial government on the other were aware or ought to have been aware of the financial and political implications of the Conservative election platform at the time it was made in 2004.
Discussions on Equalization, including the O'Brien commission were well under way at the time of the 2006 election.
The Premier certainly appears to have had some assessment of the federal Conservative position in 2004 when it was first raised. There was no sudden discovery of a financial problem or there certainly shouldn't have been for either side.
In the changes that were actually implemented, a number of provinces are beneficiaries, including Quebec and arguably including Newfoundland and Labrador. Certainly had the decision gone to either extreme - versus the middle road taken - there would have been big winners and bigger losers in both instances.
As for the Metis, do you recall what was promised and when? You might want to check before you start tossing out more deflections.
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 7:29 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Billy Hickey from NL writes: Ed, I believe my unsubstantive swipe was a question posed to contributors, some of whom are prone to be harsh critics of the Premier. The point was that similar slights are regularily used to describe the Premier yet only his use of the word traitor spurs this we've gone too far reaction. If we are gonna shut it down, than shut it all down.
Also, your points on equalization are excellent reasons why the PM shouldn't have made a commitment- but he did!
All the best,
BH
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 9:28 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
W McLean from Labrador, Up here writes: BH: ''it was a supreme court judge who decided the LMN did not qualify under Powley''
Which Supreme Court, Billy?
The Supreme Court of Canada made no such determination. However, in the Powley decision itself /A , the SCC favourably cites the definition of Metis set down by the RCAP which includes the Labrador Metis:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2003/2003scc43/2003scc43.html
In LMN vs. HMR in right of NL, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division, applied the Powley test to LMN-related facts:
http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2006/2006nltd119/2006nltd119.html
To the extent that the Supreme Court Appeal Division aid that it was an error to apply the Powley Metis analysis at first instance it was because... an Inuit-based analysis would be more appropriate:
http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/2007/2007nlca75/2007nlca75.html
Are you I really /I sure The Big Guy wants to go there?
Having lost at first instance and on appeal, the Supremes dismissed The Big Guy's application for leave to appeal, with costs. I think losing in court is something that The Big Guy used to exorciate his predecessors for:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2008/08-05-29.3/08-05-29.3.htm
Nice try, though. Next time, try not to be quite as contrafactual.
|
| Posted 11/10/2008 at 9:32 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Billy Hickey from NL writes: W,
Fair enough, I stand corrected on the useage of supreme court justice.
Not sure what you mean by big guy? Just providing my own thoughts on a saturday.
I'll quit now.
Bh
|
| Posted 12/10/2008 at 12:39 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
W McLean from Labrador, Up here writes: BH: ''Fair enough, I stand corrected on the useage of supreme court justice.''
Unless you can come up with a case wherein ''a supreme court judge decided the LMN did not qualify under Powley'', I'd modestly suggest you should instead stand corrected on your claim that ''it was a supreme court judge who decided the LMN did not qualify under Powley''
BH: ''Not sure what you mean by big guy?''
Not sure why you used a question mark there.
For clarity's sake: ''The Big Guy'' = Danny Williams.
|
| Posted 12/10/2008 at 11:30 AM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
Mark Watton from NL writes: I'm late to this party and have little to add on the traitor discussion that hasn't already been mentioned. I do find it interesting to note that everyone seems to suddenly have come around to the notion that Stephen Harper made a really stupid promise, one that was impossible to keep - One that he shouldn't have made.
Which begs the question, if it's clear that one political leader was a fool to make it, isn't it just as clear that another political leader was as much a fool to believe it?
|
| Posted 12/10/2008 at 10:56 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
Peter Jackson from NL writes: I hate to perpetuate this further, but it's not just about Harper's stupidity in making the promise. It was his arrogant refusal to admit that he went back on his word.
|
| Posted 13/10/2008 at 3:11 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
|
Mark Watton from NL writes: I don't think anyone would disagree with that Peter. His arrogant refusal to admit his mistake is equally galling. But anybody with a minimal comprehension of the country's Equalization system knew the moment his promise was uttered that it would never and could never be kept. Then again, anyone who dared make such a sensible argument would have been branded a traitor and run out of town at the time, to bring this conversation full circle to Geoff's column...
|
| Posted 15/10/2008 at 12:02 PM | Alert an Editor | Link to comment |
| ALERT US ABOUT THIS COMMENT |
|
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the rules explained in the Terms of Usage and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
|
|
|
NOTE
The management of this site emphasizes that it is in no way liable for persons, physical or legal, who are hosted here. Moreover, the managers of this site may not be held liable for errors and omissions that may slip into the information displayed in these reader comments. Everyone who submits a comment should read, understand and agree to the Terms of Usage for this section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
