I had fully intended on writing an April Fool's article this morning; I had even managed to get as far as writing a few paragraphs when I realized my heart wasn't in it. Perhaps it's because so many of the headlines in recent days have been such that nothing I could have written could compete with reality for surrealism and inanity.
If I had written as dialogue some of the things that have come out of people's mouths in recent days, I would have been laughed at for being so unrealistic, paranoid, or just plain crazy. Maybe these things aren't funny in that sidesplitting way we like to associate with April Fool's, more like funny in the, "holy, I can't believe this is happening" kind of way.
Look at the Conservative Party of Canada for instance. They were elected on January 23rd, 2006, and they haven't bothered to call Parliament to deal with two fairly important issues having to do with international relations. It seems they have discovered the secret of dealing with a minority government's precarious position by the simple expedient of delaying a sitting of the House of Commons as long as possible.
One of the issues that Canadian politicians are not being given a say in is our increased military presence in Afghanistan. When Prime Minister Harper was questioned about a debate on the issue in the House, he claimed that a debate would only risk the lives of soldiers.
The very strange thing is that he has full party support for the Canadian Army in Afghanistan. What some are concerned about is our increasingly active role as aggressors instead of peacekeepers. Maybe what he is worried about is the fact that he doesn't have much public support. A poll conducted last February found that 62% of Canadians were against sending troops to Afghanistan, and 73% were in favour of having Parliament voting on the issue.
While the Prime Minister wants people to believe this is a reaction to the increase in casualties that Canadian troops have experienced in the last month, the poll was taken in mid-February, before our soldiers were repositioned onto the front lines. Even better was the pollster's remark, a former Conservative party advisor, that the results show that Canadians obviously don't know enough to make an informed decision.
Article comments
1 - Steve
Although it's been ASSUMED that Harper is restricting media access to his ministers because of their social conservative views, I think it's far more likely that he is simply trying to give his MP's time to master their portfolios, after all the Cons. have been out of power for 13 years, and only one or two of the caucus have any federal cabinet experience at all. As those who've been around a long time will tell you, Harper's approach can only last a few months even if he wanted it to last longer. MP's love the limelight too much.
Re. Afghanistan, one could argue there should have been a debate before the troops were sent, but as the decision was made during an election by the former outgoing govt., I don't know how one can blame the Tories for that. The Liberals have been treating military missions in a non-parliamentary fashion for years. I don't see what the purpose is of debating the issue after the troops have already been sent and are in a year long mandate there. Harper will bring the issue to debate when Parliament resumes in the Fall, before the military's current mandate in Afghanistan is up at the end of the year. Not a big deal.
Re. Mayes, he is a backbench MP, hardly unusual for them to put their foots in their mouths from any party.
2 - Kurt
I'm extremely proud of Canada's role as a peacemaker and to see it start to slide into a more aggressive role,is disheartening.
MP's take over new portfolios all the time, and within days they're able to make some kind of comment. Surely it's not rocketscience.
Harper did say, he would personally field any substantive questions from the media, so maybe everthings okay.
3 - Janet
Thanks Steve for the voice of reason. Although the offer was made to Hamas to reconsider their position regarding the destruction of Israel and to denounce violence as a party platform, they chose to reject this. It is the position of Nato (not just Canada or the U.S.) that a government (in this case also a recognized terrorist group) cannot and should not be recognized. Although diplomatic relations with any government would always be a first choice to sort out differences it has NEVER been a successful strategy to negotiate with terrorists because their mandate does not include compromise. Canada is the last one the list of terrorist targets (per 2002 info). I don't believe we've been removed from the list. Let's not be naive enough to believe that terrorists are our FRIENDS!!or ever will be. I am glad that our government is astute enough to continue providing aid to the Palestinian people through outlets that can effectively get help to the people, rather than irresponsibly send money to a government who will look after their own interests first, including the purchase of arms to continue their
vendetta on Israel. I am proud that Canada has sent this clear message and without doubt, other countries (and there are many in Europe) will follow. "You can't have it both ways."
4 - Steve
yw, and thank you for your contribution also, Janet.
5 - freda cull
this is clearly a problem government for those unable to post since 2006 and including myself. rumour is that people are missing and unable to comment not because of disgust but becasue they failed ot communicate they weren't perfect at solving our diplomacy, communication, community problems