![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
Here we go yet again. Once again, Iggy may not be our first choice, but he’s all we’ve got at this time. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, yeesh! This time, it’s about that whole marijuana; to legalize or not to legalize? That is the question of the day it would seem. Even over at the Youtube site, TalkCanada, where folks are posting questions for St-Stevie to answer at about 19;00 tonight are largely, if not for the most part, all about the legalization of pot. Way to go, Canada! Great way to keep our priorities straight. I can get these questions from impressionable teen-agers or even young adults who haven’t lived long enough to question more substantial issues. However, from the 30 something and up crowds?
Don’t get me wrong, I also support the legalization of marijuana, particularly if it is regulated and taxed, much like alcohol and cigarrettes. Instead of throwing pot users into our already overcrowded jails and prisons, being a further drain on the taxpayers, legalize it and earn tax revenue from it that can go toward much needed improvements on our health care system or some other program of importance. I would lobby for that, but also, it’s not a deal breaker for me when I go out an vote. There are far more important issues that should be deal breakers for voters though. Issues like health care, abortion, equal rights for all, torturegate, the environment, that war in Afghanistan, women’s issues, etc. etc.
I’m also for the legalization and regulation of prostitution. Again, more tax revenue and the sex trade can be regulated to make it a whole lot safer, much like in the Netherlands. I didn’t see or hear too many questions about that at the TalkCanada site.
There were quite a few of those questions as well there should be. There should have been even more, although, sadly, most of those questions will be censored, more than likely.
As for that little ‘scandal’ at that Newfoundland high school, where Iggy spoke, one kid asked him his thoughts of legalized marijuana:
“If I had to tell you as a parent or as someone who has spent his whole life working with young people, the last darn thing I want you to be doing is smoking marijuana,” the federal Liberal leader said. “I want you to be out there digging a well, digging a ditch, getting a job, raising a family … doing stuff, instead of parking your life on the end of a marijuana cigarette.”
No matter how progressive you may claim to be, are you all going to tell me that you allow your kids to smoke pot? Or that you would condone anyone in a position of power to condone pot or drugs of any kind at their school? Be honest with yourselves, and really think about that one. I also know that if Steve, Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe or even Lizzy May were faced with this question by a kid, they too would have to be careful with the answer they give no matter what they may campaign on at a later time or whatever their feelings are on the subject.
In addition, Iggy gave the typical old stay in school, work hard and be productive members of society speech. I can agree that that whole ‘ditch digging’ metaphor was a poor choice, but I think we can all get it. Also, yes, he could have given a better explanation than that whole ‘We don’t want to displease Washington thing’; Lord knows there are many he could have drawn from. Personally, if it were me, I would have brought up the more important issues I mentioned above in this piece, but, essentially, he have the same speech that would have been expected of any leader anywhere.
However, Chris, not like your master never played such a close game of ‘monkey see-monkey do’ with the Whitehouse, eh? Not like he makes a regular nuisance of himself with President Obama?
Folks, leave the Iggy and other opposition parties bashing to the likes of the Blogging Tories, they have not much else to do with themselves.
I have a question for those progressives who really hate Iggy and/or the Liberals though, Why is Iggy much worse than St-Stevie? Sometimes, when I read some of the progressive blogs, I get the feeling that Iggy is more criticized than St-Stevie and the Harpercons; almost like they would even entertain an Evangelical Far Right Christian Fundamentalist totalitarian regime over having Iggy as PM of a Liberal minority government (best Iggy can ever hope for and even then). Why is that?
Do they honestly think that St-Stevie’s far right ruling of illegal abortions, Americanizing what’s left of our universal health care system (Flaherty even hinted at it very recently), repealing not only same sex marriage, but also stripping away all gay rights, and a whole host of nightmarish things he always dreamed of doing is better than a Liberal minority? We may not know Iggy that much, but I think it’s a safe bet that at worst, Canada remains as is…still in need of certain reforms, but I don’t think Iggy can make it any worse than a St-Stevie majority can. ..no Fundamental Christianity Sarah Palin/ George W Bush rule and laws that go with a Harpercon majority.
No, it’s more like Iggy is pretty much like most politicians, not a great thing, but then, apathetic Canadian don’t try to get any better neither. St-Stevie, though, to his credit and much to the chagrin of all of us progressives has demonstrated how different he is from the usual politician in so many ways. He always said we wouldn’t recognize Canada when he got through with it. Most of us have already started to see those drastic changes he did for the worst…and that is with a minority! Imagine him with a majority? Would be the totalitarian regime, no doubt. Any party in opposition would simply only have the role of taking up space as they would be rendered absolutely useless.
No folks, this Iggy and Liberal bashing as well as those who bash the N.D.P. (Eugene Forsey, I hope you’re reading this!) or bash any of the opposition parties is not going to get Harper out of office, if anything, it helps him get his majority. Remember, Stevie’s secret to his success is playing that old divide and conquer routine.
In order for Iggy to be gone, he needs to lose a general election. The liberals are not going to get rid of him otherwise. Even if St-Stevie gets another minority, I gather that would be it. His party is going to see that Steve cannot get that coveted majority and they would push him out the door surely. I would hazzard a guess that the Cons would pick somebody more Progressive Conservative type than another evangelical far right Christian fundy type.
What would be best before the next election is for all of the opposition parties as well as progressive Canadian citizens to push for a coalition to get us through the next election. A coalition would be our savior.
Hey, Sister Sage,
I have a thought about the serious surplus of Marijuana Questions on the TalkCanada site. I simply do not believe that that many people asked those questions – when everyone & his/her dog is worried about jobs, the economy, retirement, human rights, child care & this government’s serious undermining of democracy in the Afghan detainee affair, as well as SO many other ways! So the fact that there were a MAJORITY of questions on MJ, compared to other topics, makes sense only one of two ways that I can think of. One, the Marijuana Party, or some other dedicated group flooded the site with those questions just for the heck of it. OR the Conbot Worker Ants decided that that was the question to seem to ask, because it was YouTube & only (in the Con world) “Young People” use YouTube. And thus, they wouldn’t have to answer “real” questions.
I dunno. It’s just REALLy strange. And I tried to post any number of other questions & only got 2 posted. The rest would all come up with a page that said, “This question is similar to questions already asked” & then show me examples of questions that had absolutely NOTHING to do with even the TOPIC (eg. economy) that I was writing about in my question. Just very very weird. And I don’t believe it was “above board” for one second.
Would love to hear some other theories.
ck Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 11:02 PM
you do bring up an interesting theory, because ordinarily, the question of legalizing or not legalizing pot is usually pretty low on the priority list of Canadian worries. As you pointed out, things like jobs, health care, reproductive rights, basic human rights, pensions, etc are and should be bigger priorities than pot legalization.
As I’ve pointed out, I am all for the legalization of pot, but, it’s not a deal breaker for me.
What a load of crap! I’m certainly not going to bend over and accept a crypto-conservative windbag like Michael Ignatieff because of about of unsupported blather about evil Stephen Harper. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Where is the substantive difference between the two men? Ignatieff has spilled far more ink than Harper ever has defending the worst excesses of foreign policy. I don’t see a shred of evidence that the Conservatives are prepared to touch abortion or gay rights with a ten foot pole even with a majority government (which they aren’t going to get). Ignatieff has offered nothing substantive in the way of environmental policy that will actually stem the tide of global warming. Torturegate is more important than legalizing pot? Locking up hundreds or thousands of Canadians because of a relatively benign plant on an ongoing daily basis is a less pressing issue than the possibility that we may have been negligent or reckless to the fact that they may be tortured if we hand them over to their own government?
What a load of unmitigated tripe. Don’t be fooled by Ignatieff because he is a Johnny Come Lately to the left wing causes du jour. He is a right wing buffoon and the only hope for progressives in this country is to see him summarily turfed and replaced with someone better.
Oh and if the context of Ignatieff being at a school is so important why does he take the same position when hes NOT in a school?
ck Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 1:14 AM
First evidence is that you trust him at all. Unsupported blather? Go Here for more proof of Harper’s plans. Also here to prove Harper is most like GW Bush.
Then to suggest nothing is more important than legalized marijuana? C’mon, now.
No evidence they would touch abortion? Ever hear Dean Del Maestro talk? Gerry Ritz also said that once they (Hapercons) got a majority, all bets were off. You wanna give them a majority to find out exactly how they would touch abortion?
As I mentioned the only way to get rid of Iggy is a general election (unless of course, he joins a coalition: I know he balks at it now; he may find himself with no choice later on though).
I haven’t seen any evidence that Iggy is any more to the right than Paul Martin was, and Paul Martin was certainly no more right than Stevie.
Harper is an evangelical far right Christian. one very substantive difference between the two men.
As I’ve mentioned, unless there is,perhaps a coalition to stop Harper, the N.D.P. will never ever govern.
With a comment minimizing the fact that we more than likely broke international laws, I have to wonder if you’re really a conservative troll?
Funny you only mention 2 issues that Blogging Tories scream at the rest of the world to forget and let go. Funny, you don’t mention women’s issues, abortion, child care, jobs, pension plans, etc.
You really want to cite dueling sites quoting anti-Canadian and pro-American comments from Iggy and Harper? Come on now. We both know that Ignatieff has said some uncharitable things towards this country and shown indifference towards it until he say an opportunity to lead it.
I was an active card carrying Liberal until the current fool came leader. I am also a die hard social liberal so there is no way in hell I would vote Conservative or am a Conservative troll. I just don’t fall for the Harper Derangement Syndrome that you, my father and others (including myself 4 years ago) seem to manifest. The guy has been PM for four years and has only done less than a handful of things that make me think he is a Liberal. Nor do I think that progressives should just shut up and ignore Ignatieff’s appalling shortcomings out of fear of Harper. Harper is not going to get a majority government. Its really that simple.
You call me a conservative troll because I ‘minimized’(alleged) violations of international law, what about your acting as an apologist and minimizing the fact that Canadians are being locked up, being fined and having their lives destroyed with a criminal record over a frickin plant? Who is the conservative troll? IMHO that is a far worse human rights abuse than whatever torture is going on in Afghanistan.
I never suggested that legalization is the most important social issue. My only point was that it was on par with some of the other issues you mention, and that I think you are blowing some things out of proportion. You bring up Dean Del Mastro and Gerry Ritz. What about the Liberal’s battery of social conservatives? This is the party that put up with Tom Wappel until only recently and is still home for such so-cons as Paul Szabo, Dan McTeague and John MacKay? But most importantly we haven’t heard anything on recriminalizing abortion from the person whose opinion matters most–Stephen Harper.
You want some evidence that Ignatieff is to the right of Paul Martin? What about his support for the Iraq War, ‘Empire Lite’, and a variety of other foreign policy excesses? What about his use of nonsensical neoconservative drug war arguments (remember he doesn’t just oppose legalization, he supports the drug war–see Bill C-15)? What about Ignatieff’s dismisiveness of tax hikes as a way to deal with the deficit? I could go on.
You’re going to have to be more specific about what you mean by “women’s issues” before I can’t agree that Harper is worse than Ignatieff, or that it is an issue of greater importance than the drug war until I know what specific policies you are referring to when you say “women’s issues”.
As for child care jobs and pension plans? I haven’t heard a word out of Ignatieff to suggest that he has a realistic plan on either of these issues including how he intends to pay for fixing them.
My point is that I’m not just going to jump on the bandwagon and support Iggy (and ignore his serious shortcomings–like his drug war nonsense) because he calls himself a Liberal. He hasn’t demonstrated that he truly is one and the only hope for any sort of “progressive” politics in this country is if the Libearls ditch him.
ck Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Did you read my previous response? NOt completely, I see.
If you had, you might have even clicked the link about Steve’s church on a compound accessible only by big monster gas guzzlers. All religious extremism is scary.
Of course Steve hasn’t mentioned criminalizing abortion. Nor has he spoken of that old NCC dream of privatizing everything and Americanizing what’s left of our universal health care system, although Flaherty reminded us as of late. He’s in permanent campaign mode for that totalitarian regime he so covets. (remember that con by-election placard in Hochelaga: “de l’action, pas d’election”. It doesn’t mean he won’t do any of it if we let him loose with a majority. He’s lied about everything else, why not this?
Giving me names of those religious liberals was nothing more than a red herring. Liberals have always had religious pro-lifers, anti-gays in their party since Trudeau (including himself, actually) and probably even before then. They never mixed religion with governing. Harper would. Just picture it, GW Bush wannabe leading Jim & Tammy Faye Baker, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, the Late Jerry Falwell and Benny Hinn types leading Canada. Next time you respond to this post, please tell me if you’re really ok with a Jim & TAmmy Faye BAker, sarah Palin and Kirk Cameron types who believe the world is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. Even you have to admit that Iggy is too intelligent to subscribe to that.
You talk of ‘alleged’ torture. Yeah, for a social progressive, you don’t care about Canada’s reputation going down the toilet on the world stage.
Do you believe in climate change?
Iggy has already shown us that legalized abortion in Canada would be safe under a liberal gov’t.
Harper would never give you your precious legalized marijuana, he said as much last night on the big youtube screen.
Why do you defend Harper so passionately, even though you know he won’t legalize pot. And why is that such a priority in your world?
You did, however, partially answer one of my questions though. YOu inadvertently swallowed the kool-aid Harpercon media served up.
Strange, really. To you, nothing is more important than legalized pot, yet you seem to defend Steve a little too passionately on my comment board to be calling yourself a social liberal. I do have to wonder…
Sorry, KC, don’t look now, but me thinks you’ve been steered on Stevie and the Harpercons’ sharp right turn.
All you did is attempt to prove that Iggy isn’t that much more different that Harpercon minority. You have failed to prove to me how Iggy is actually so much more evul and frightening than Iggy is. If you come back commenting, I would like it if you addressed that one.
You only told me
Sorry “Liberal” in the third last line of paragraph 2 should say “radical”. Should edit these things first.
- I haven’t swallowed any Kool-Aid and I certainly haven’t ‘passionately defended’ Stephen Harper. I just refuse to line up behind a faux liberal like Michael Ignatieff out of fear of scary Stephen Harper. My goal is to get rid of Stephen Harper AND Michael Ignatieff and replace the latter with a truely social progressive leader. Let be clear on this: Canada will not have progressive governance until both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff are gone. Replacing Stephen Harper only fixes half the problem.
- If you knew me you’d know that outright disdain for theocracy (ran be evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews, fundamentalist Muslims, whomever) is my M.O., and at the very core of my political being. That said I don’t think Harper’s association with an evangelical church should disqualify him. Remember that Chretien and Martin were members of one of the most socially conservative Church’s around–the Catholic Church. This is a church that has rejected calls for tolerance of homosexuality and anything that departs from the traditional family model, and is the most vocal opponent of abortion (which is apparently quite important to you).
- Of course I believe in climate change but neither Stephen Harper nor Michael Ignatieff have presented a plan that will really do anything about it. Harper has offered nothing, and Ignatieff has only offered window dressing. I don’t really see much difference between inaction and token action. Until your ready to take real action on the oil sands, our use of the automobile and our energy grid you’re really just blowing smoke.
- Its not a red herring to list those Liberals. All of the ones I listed are quite explicit that they would mix religion and politics–witness their attendance at anti-abortion rallies and their votes for anti-abortion private members bills as proof.
- I don’t know what being a social liberal has to do with Canada’s reputation going down the toilet. Sometimes bucking the international trend (like Canada when it legalized SSM or Portugal when it legalized drugs) is the most socially liberal thing to do. The International Community isn’t always right.
- But that is beside the point. The international community is right on the issue of torture. The point though is that you expect me to be more concerned about the fact that some Afghanis may have been handed over to their own government to be tortured than that our own government is punishing thousands of Canadians a year for a non-crime. I think both are important issues but think the latter is more serious, and I wont shut up and toe the line when the leader of the Liberal party shows he is brain dead on the subject. Besides, I’m not convinced that Ignatieff wouldn’t have been just as indifferent to torture as Harper and his Conservatives are. Like I said he is a Johnny come lately to the progressive issues of the day. He is only making an issue out of it because he sees a political opportunity. Not because he genuinely cares.
- I realize that Stephen Harper isnt going to legalize either… but I’m not voting for Stephen Harper nor do I plan on it so whats the point? That I should just support the other guy just because he calls himself a liberal even though hes an idiotic crypto-conservative? Nuts to that.
- It is a priority because it is one of the most transparently ridiculous policies on the books. It does absolutely no good whatsoever. It sucks up my tax dollars (thus making them unavailable for things like daycare that you seem to care about) and it punishes a LOT of Canadians who are doing nothing wrong. It really irks me to hear so-called social liberals minimize this issue. Its sad that so many progressives think that a law that imprisons people, ruins their lives with a criminal record, and makes our streets more dangerous is ‘no big thang’. This is a serious issue and it would be nice to see our politicians at least demonstrate some critical thought on it.
- Abortion is safe in Canada. The Conservatives aren’t going to touch it. Even Brian Mulroney couldn’t muster the votes to recriminalize it. They would need to use the notwithstanding clause in any event. If I thought it was in danger I would probably consider voting for Ignatieff (I still wouldn’t shut up about the issue at hand however).
- I’m not as frightened as you of Harper for the reasons I’ve set forth before 1) hes not going to win a majority government–it just aint gonna happen, 2) despite his affiliations he hasnt acted like a member of the religious right, 3) he is more interested in power than a social conservative agenda and will be tempered by public opinion.
- You keep saying that this is the most important issue to me. Its not. If Ignatieff offered a coherent and substantive policy on climate change, the deficit, jobs, pensions, etc. etc. I supported Chretien and Martin despite their inaction. I could put aside this issue if Ignatieff was otherwise a good giuy but hes offered NOTHING except that hes not Stephen Harper which frankly isn’t good enough. Even if that were the case and I supported I would still call him on the carpet for the drug war nonsense that he spews.
- If anyones socially liberal bona fides are in question it is yours as you are the one defending drug war nonsense from the ‘liberal’ leader.
ck Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Chretien and Martin were members of one of the most socially conservative Church’s around–the Catholic Church.
Yeah, so was Trudeau. Yet, it was under their party, the Liberals Canada’s most progressive legislation comes from, in spite of the religious beliefs of their MPS of the day.
Drug war nonsense? Oh, dear!
Your not going to get rid of both leaders at the same time, unless there is a general election in which Stevie only gains another minority. I doubt that will happen though, no, a fall election is what is going to get Stevie a majority. Many are predicting the economy will get stronger. I don’t believe that, but …even if come the fall, the economy still hasn’t recovered, the Harpercon media will serve up the economy has recovered and we have Steve to thank for it kool-aid, and presto, he gets his majority. No, I predict in the next election, Harper will be a majority or bust. No more minorities for Harpercons.
Do I think the economy in Canada will recover that fast? No, I don’t, as the other shoe is about to drop in the U.S. Plus, give Stevie a majority, he will deregulate the banking industry the way the Americans did, that caused the recession. But, that doesn’t matter much today, does it? The truth won’t even matter. ONly the kool-aid served up by the Harpercon media will be swallowed.
With the help of the media, Steve has proven to have a propensity for bouncing back. Hell, before prorogation, he did have that magic 40%. Chretien only had 37% to get his majority. Your divisiveness as well is what Stevie thrives on…that old divide and conquer game…. It’s what will get Stevie his majority. Don’t underestimate Steveie, all the harpercon media.
I’m not necessarily defending the drug war as you call it. I’m just a realist is all. Canadians aren’t as progressive as we may like to think they are. In fact, someone who had travelled extensively observed that the U.S. was the most Conservative and Canada was 2nd. Canadians are more to the right than they were years ago and like the U.S., ‘everything is evul soshalism’. I can only hope that a majority of Canadians if they got out and voted to show that they’re not all on that far right ride of Steve’s.
It is also the reason the N.D.P. will never ever govern.
Legalized pot is not a deal breaker when I vote. I don’t think it is with most folks. K.C, if you have kids; teen-agers, are you honestly going to tell me that your dream for them is to take as much dope as possible, rather than to, say, do well in school? Have a career?
In my dreams, I would prefer us to be socialists, but that ain’t goin’ to happen with McCarthyism on the rise.
As for climate change, here comes some of that realism again: Canadians talk a good game about climate change, but when it means things like carbon taxes or changing their lifestyles, the way they consume and the products for things like cleaning the house. If climate change were that important, the Greens would actually have a seat and Stephane Dion in 2008 might have been able to sell his carbon tax idea but instead, it was one of the items that cost him the election of 2008.
2) despite his affiliations he hasnt acted like a member of the religious right, 3) he is more interested in power than a social conservative agenda and will be tempered by public opinion.
well, of course he hasn’t behaved that way (well, actually, remember his behind closed door video in Sudbury last September? Never caught that?), because he has a minority and wants that majority. Same for number 3. He is interested in power, no kidding! Again, give him a majority and he will put on a social and fiscal conservative agenda. I guarantee, it will be he Canadian GOP.
There you go again about all those pot smokers languishing in jail who harbor more of your concern than the Afghan detainees issue. First of all, as the law stands, most who are caught with small amounts of marijuana (and it better be only pot: no heroine; no coke) pretty much never do jail time. And those who do, usually had other more serious charges against them as well. At least, they’re not being tortured by their gate keepers in Canadian prisons.
It disturbs me that you don’t care more about the detainee issue. Keep in mind, if as Harper spun on the big ol’ youtube last night that there was no proof of nothing, then why is he going to all the trouble, contorting himself like a pretzel stalling for time to keep those unredacted documents hidden? If there was really nothing, then wouldn’t have been so much easier to simply show us?
Instead of squabbling like this which helps Stevie achieve his totalitarian regime, we should be getting together to promote a coalition. It would be the best case scenario for our side at this time. IN fact, it would be our savior
KC, here is a video from Pale Cold of A Creative Revolution. Hopefully, this will put the fear of ever loving Harpercon Gods into anyone:
Well I think I know the main source of our differences–you think Harper is going to get a majority. I think that is incredibly unlikely. I’ve looked at the numbers and don’t see any reasonable route to a majority. Certainly a low enough likelihood to take the risk and have Ignatieff lose the election so he can be turfed and replaced with someone better.
I simply don’t have the time to respond to every point but I would say that while I certainly wouldn’t want to see my kids became lazy potheads but 1) even if they did I would accept them for who they are and wouldn’t want to see them end up with a criminal record or in jail and 2) don’t see it as a binary choice between a rhodes scholar and a lazy pothead. Harper and Ignatieff both don’t seem to realize that there is such thing as responsible and moderate use of marijuana, just as there is responsible drinking.
I’m not going to sit here and minimize the detainee issue as you are willing to minimize the amount of misery that prohibition causes. But I will stand by my belief that the latter is of more concern than the former. The detainee scandal is the issue of the day so a lot of people (like yourself) seem to think it is the most important issue of our time. The human tendency to ascribe high importance to issues that are recent/current and receive extensive media coverage is well documented in the pscychological literature. But the fact is that the war on drugs (even if restricted to the war on marijuana) has caused substantial harm to a far more people (and will continue to do so until it has been dealt with) than the detainee scandal ever touched. I’m sorry but it is simply a more important issue to deal with.