Here is an excerpt from Milton on ‘Free Nations’ written in old English (and it might need rereading):
“And surely they that shall boast, as we do, to be a free Nation, and not have in themselves the power to remove, or to abolish any governor supreme, or subordinat, with the government it self upon urgent causes, may please thir fancy with a ridiculous and painted freedom, fit to coz’n babies; but are indeed under tyranny and servitude; as wanting that power, which is the root and source of all liberty, to dispose and economize in the Land which God hath giv’n them, as Maisters of Family in thir own house and free inheritance. Without which natural and essential power of a free Nation, though bearing high thir heads, they can in due esteem be thought no better then slaves and vassals born, in the tenure and occupation of another inheriting Lord. Whose government, though not illegal, or intolerable, hangs over them as a Lordly scourge, not as a free government; and therefore to be abrogated.”
John Milton’s, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, was first published in 1649, less than two weeks after the execution of Charles I. Milton wrote about liberty, the people’s right to resist tyranny and the need for political trust, among other things.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
"How to Make the Right Decisions" by Cicero
“Holding things back does not always amount to concealment, but it does when you want people, for your advantage, not to know something which you know and it would benefit them to know. Anyone can see this sort of concealment that this amounts to – and the sort of person who practices it. Certainly he is not an open, straightforward, fair, honest man; no, he is a shifty, deep, artful, treacherous, malevolent, underhand, sly, habitual rogue. Surely it is inexpedient to get oneself called by all those names and a lot more besides!"
Excerpted from How to Make the Right Decisions written by Cicero, a Roman Senator, not long after the murder of Julius Caesar (44B.C.); he was himself murdered on 7 December 43 B.C.
Excerpted from How to Make the Right Decisions written by Cicero, a Roman Senator, not long after the murder of Julius Caesar (44B.C.); he was himself murdered on 7 December 43 B.C.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Letter to Michael Ignatieff, Liberal Leader
The Honourable Michael Ignatieff
Leader of the Opposition
Liberal Party of Canada - National Office
Suite 400-81 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa
K1P 6M8
12 January 2010
Dear Mr. Ignatieff,
I noted in The Globe and Mail some while ago your review of Machiavelli’s The Prince, but you forgot a lesson: “When trouble is sensed well in advance it can easily be remedied; if you wait for it to show itself any medicine will be too late because the disease will have become incurable.” Why did Canadians have to wait a week after Harper’s second prorogued Parliament for your meagre depiction of it as “crazy” when the words illiberal and undemocratic would have been an understatement? Apparently you chose to take a vacation – outside of the country? Why did you not return home sooner? Were you not aware that Canadians suffered a leadership vacuum in the days since Harper’s announcement? Were you not aware that “governments” such as ours regularly like to make full use of strategic timing to announce policies in an effort to minimize scrutiny? Ottawa was rife with rumour of prorogation: why did you not say anything earlier, like pass a warning shot across Harper’s bow?
Your sense of timing is impeccable. In the autumn you announced your candidacy for the prime minister’s job when Liberals were riding high in the polls - and for no other apparent reason. After the polls plunged to near Dion levels, as we know, and when constitutional stakes are critical, you announce to all interested parties that you are not going to make prorogation an election issue. This amounts to a terrible squandering of political capital. Perhaps if you had not gambled so soon, we would not be facing prorogation today. Now you must pose a serious threat to the Harper government while they remain ever dismissive. What will construe an election issue, in your mind? Will it be dictated by high polls? Or by what actually matters? It is high time that parliamentary principle prevail over pathetic party-line politics.
I gather you have been canvassing the country while the Afghan detainee issue made its way into Parliament, so your team has been speaking on behalf of Richard Colvin, et al. This must be terribly convenient. In other words you can avoid the detritus of your own regime change politics – and a nebulous climate of opinion around the issue of torture - made on behalf of the Americans and President Bush not too long ago. (See Ignatieff’s World Updated: Iggy goes to Ottawa by Denis Smith, pp. 140-143). The more you remain out of sight today, the less you appear to contradict yourself. Now you have the daunting task (without a sitting Parliament, as you note) of making alleged torture an issue when you were seemingly making the atmosphere around such matters less clear in the years before returning to Canada.
And I would like to point out that one of the causes behind the Afghan detainee issue is that Canada is at ‘War on Terror’. This is also one of the reasons why the Harper government might just get away with prorogation, because it reflects the general diminishment of liberties already taking place in the West since 9/11. While Harper is the only one to have thought of prorogation, both Britain and the USA have experienced profound legislative setbacks to civil liberties (for example the American Patriot Act, aspects of which, it turned out, infringed on the U.S. Constitution). In Britain the House of Commons recently passed legislation allowing subjects to be held without charge for 42 days (extended from a mere 28 days). At the time of the Magna Carta (1215) one could only be held for 48 hours. (See A.C. Grayling, Liberty in the Age of Terror). The widespread decline of civil liberties (for example, now also at our airports) and the opportunity for prorogation itself could have been minimized, perhaps, if Canada’s Leader of the Opposition (as a previous ‘public intellectual’) had not advocated for war on Iraq but instead helped focus the resources of the West initially on Afghanistan, which has very much remained an unfortunate sideshow. Do I see an irony?
Canadians need fresh air. Parliament has been prorogued twice now since your turn in federal politics. You did nothing previously, being the last Liberal signatory to the “coalition”, and so far you have done nothing this time around except time your criticisms of Harper with The Economist, apparently. You must push for an alternative Parliament, and you need to appeal to all Canadians (there is at least 60% of them) to support it until March 3, when “Harper’s Parliament” reconvenes. It is also time you considered working with the other parties, certainly the NDP, to help bring representation back to Canada and to Canadians. This way you can revisit the detainee issue with some element of atonement and clarity. It is up to you as Leader of the Opposition to carry the torch for Canadian democracy: you will not find it in Harper’s government, because it has sacrificed everything for party discipline, the war (in Afghanistan and against the Opposition) - and for Machiavellian machinations. Let’s put some of that “true patriot love” you speak of in action before we conclude it is nothing else but empty and supercilious rhetoric.
Sincerely,
Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.
cc www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com
cc joehueglin@bellnet.ca
Leader of the Opposition
Liberal Party of Canada - National Office
Suite 400-81 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa
K1P 6M8
12 January 2010
Dear Mr. Ignatieff,
I noted in The Globe and Mail some while ago your review of Machiavelli’s The Prince, but you forgot a lesson: “When trouble is sensed well in advance it can easily be remedied; if you wait for it to show itself any medicine will be too late because the disease will have become incurable.” Why did Canadians have to wait a week after Harper’s second prorogued Parliament for your meagre depiction of it as “crazy” when the words illiberal and undemocratic would have been an understatement? Apparently you chose to take a vacation – outside of the country? Why did you not return home sooner? Were you not aware that Canadians suffered a leadership vacuum in the days since Harper’s announcement? Were you not aware that “governments” such as ours regularly like to make full use of strategic timing to announce policies in an effort to minimize scrutiny? Ottawa was rife with rumour of prorogation: why did you not say anything earlier, like pass a warning shot across Harper’s bow?
Your sense of timing is impeccable. In the autumn you announced your candidacy for the prime minister’s job when Liberals were riding high in the polls - and for no other apparent reason. After the polls plunged to near Dion levels, as we know, and when constitutional stakes are critical, you announce to all interested parties that you are not going to make prorogation an election issue. This amounts to a terrible squandering of political capital. Perhaps if you had not gambled so soon, we would not be facing prorogation today. Now you must pose a serious threat to the Harper government while they remain ever dismissive. What will construe an election issue, in your mind? Will it be dictated by high polls? Or by what actually matters? It is high time that parliamentary principle prevail over pathetic party-line politics.
I gather you have been canvassing the country while the Afghan detainee issue made its way into Parliament, so your team has been speaking on behalf of Richard Colvin, et al. This must be terribly convenient. In other words you can avoid the detritus of your own regime change politics – and a nebulous climate of opinion around the issue of torture - made on behalf of the Americans and President Bush not too long ago. (See Ignatieff’s World Updated: Iggy goes to Ottawa by Denis Smith, pp. 140-143). The more you remain out of sight today, the less you appear to contradict yourself. Now you have the daunting task (without a sitting Parliament, as you note) of making alleged torture an issue when you were seemingly making the atmosphere around such matters less clear in the years before returning to Canada.
And I would like to point out that one of the causes behind the Afghan detainee issue is that Canada is at ‘War on Terror’. This is also one of the reasons why the Harper government might just get away with prorogation, because it reflects the general diminishment of liberties already taking place in the West since 9/11. While Harper is the only one to have thought of prorogation, both Britain and the USA have experienced profound legislative setbacks to civil liberties (for example the American Patriot Act, aspects of which, it turned out, infringed on the U.S. Constitution). In Britain the House of Commons recently passed legislation allowing subjects to be held without charge for 42 days (extended from a mere 28 days). At the time of the Magna Carta (1215) one could only be held for 48 hours. (See A.C. Grayling, Liberty in the Age of Terror). The widespread decline of civil liberties (for example, now also at our airports) and the opportunity for prorogation itself could have been minimized, perhaps, if Canada’s Leader of the Opposition (as a previous ‘public intellectual’) had not advocated for war on Iraq but instead helped focus the resources of the West initially on Afghanistan, which has very much remained an unfortunate sideshow. Do I see an irony?
Canadians need fresh air. Parliament has been prorogued twice now since your turn in federal politics. You did nothing previously, being the last Liberal signatory to the “coalition”, and so far you have done nothing this time around except time your criticisms of Harper with The Economist, apparently. You must push for an alternative Parliament, and you need to appeal to all Canadians (there is at least 60% of them) to support it until March 3, when “Harper’s Parliament” reconvenes. It is also time you considered working with the other parties, certainly the NDP, to help bring representation back to Canada and to Canadians. This way you can revisit the detainee issue with some element of atonement and clarity. It is up to you as Leader of the Opposition to carry the torch for Canadian democracy: you will not find it in Harper’s government, because it has sacrificed everything for party discipline, the war (in Afghanistan and against the Opposition) - and for Machiavellian machinations. Let’s put some of that “true patriot love” you speak of in action before we conclude it is nothing else but empty and supercilious rhetoric.
Sincerely,
Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.
cc www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com
cc joehueglin@bellnet.ca
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Letter to the Prime Minister
The Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa
07 January 2010
Dear Mr. Harper,
I am not anxious to win your favour, but I observe upon rereading Machiavelli’s The Prince that you have heeded his lessons in realpolitik. “Men must be either pampered or crushed” – pamper your party, crush the opposition, apparently regardless of cost.
Your mission, I now see, is not to reform Canada’s constitution, but to set a course for a new state, building it along republican lines, an inspiration (it can be argued) you share with Machiavelli. Is this why you snubbed the appointed Governor General while proroguing Parliament for the second time? And is this why you persist (and here I stand corrected) on forcing an elected Senate without the support of the provinces? This is quite some way to “recalibrate,” your favourite word of late. I doubt Machiavelli would have used the term, despite its apparent scientificity. It implies that the government is some sort of (military?) machine, and it gives away your unfortunate managerial tone.
Previously I have portrayed you in Cromwellian (and Orwellian) terms, but it should be noted that when England’s Charles I lost his head in 1649, thinkers turned to Machiavelli (if not The Prince, then his Discourses) to settle reasons of state, work which later inspired the Americans. An important Machiavellian quotation comes to mind here: “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are. And those few dare not gainsay the many who are backed by the majesty of the state.” Yes, reasons of state – even in a minority Parliament - appear to prevail over embarrassing issues of torture of Afghan detainees. Machiavelli was tortured, too, in his time, but as we now know (post modern, post Geneva Convention) there is bad torture, and there is also acceptable torture, preferably among ‘others’, regardless of innocence.
Reasons of state prevailed during the infamous and scandalous Dreyfus Affair, now over a century old, when the unfortunate Jewish Captain Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of treason and imprisoned on Devil’s Island. According to the far-Right at the time, he deserved punishment (even if he was not guilty) because the French Army could not be dishonoured. Similarly whistleblower Richard Colvin can be maligned by a Minister of the Crown for speaking the truth – only to be supported by well over a hundred other diplomat types, all truth-seekers for our nation.
Apparent reasons of state versus the sovereignty of Parliament, and you Mr. Harper have opted for the classical republican state, because you never much admired those Gothic arches in Ottawa, which incidentally never made their way into Machiavelli’s Italy – and into his own preoccupation with Roman history. Moreover, we are a nation committed to war (without much debate, if at all, mind you), and according to Machiavelli (I am sure you have heard this, Mr. Harper): “The first way to lose your state is to neglect the art of war; the first way to win a state is to be skilled in the art of war.”
But what kind of war are we fighting may I ask? It is certainly not a world-type war, thankfully. And how can we teach democracy by proroguing Parliament? More importantly, how can we bring democracy to Afghanistan when tribal culture expects that men marry their first cousins? What kind of society are we defending? Our men and women are sacrificing their lives to change a people by means of guns and weapons? Afghanistan is not “medieval” (as some on the ground commentators have observed): it belongs further in the Dark Ages, or earlier. No wonder Afghanistan foiled Alexander the Great, the British and the Russians before us.
In writing to you Mr. Harper (and here I borrow from Machiavelli) “I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined.” The first time you prorogued Parliament you brought about a constitutional crisis, pitching one part of Canada against another. The second time you prorogued Parliament you are doing the same. Your fundamental lack of respect for the democratic processes of Parliament is “dissimulated” (a favourite Machiavellian concept) by your efforts to change the Senate – completely, and without the support of the provinces.
Sometimes you like to think of yourself as a “lion” (in a sweater) and many other times you are wily – like a “fox”, but most of your activity involves trying to escape a bad reputation – about which Machiavelli warns. “Escape” is a key word because you do an awful lot of it, partly thanks to the general public now satiated by federal politics these days - and often because of a once reliable media. “For intellectual training” Machiavelli recommends that “the prince must read history” for that is something you cannot escape. But if you only confine yourself to Roman history, as does that other prince of tutors you have (let’s call him Tom), you will be reduced to a rather uninspired – yes, a morally low - picture of democracy (as there was none). The Roman political culture best featured ‘reason’, (international)‘law’, ‘government’ and an eventually despotic empire but no Athenian demos – the people. In its later stages the Romans probably learned something about freedom from the ancient German (Anglo-Saxon type) tribes, if you consider Tacitus.
I am afraid Mr. Prime Minister that history has escaped you. Both you and Machiavelli trash the proverb “he who builds on the people builds on mud” but in going from the issue of Afghan detainees to prorogation to another constitutional rumble in the space of a week you are no longer the “wise prince [who] should rely on what he controls.” I am afraid you have watched too many movies in your youth, and you represent, in my eyes, a kind of constitutional Rambo. “A shrewd prince should adopt a middle way” – and here you not only fail Machiavelli but notably what once was key to the Canadian identity.
Sincerely,
Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.
cc www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com
cc joehueglin@bellnet.ca
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa
07 January 2010
Dear Mr. Harper,
I am not anxious to win your favour, but I observe upon rereading Machiavelli’s The Prince that you have heeded his lessons in realpolitik. “Men must be either pampered or crushed” – pamper your party, crush the opposition, apparently regardless of cost.
Your mission, I now see, is not to reform Canada’s constitution, but to set a course for a new state, building it along republican lines, an inspiration (it can be argued) you share with Machiavelli. Is this why you snubbed the appointed Governor General while proroguing Parliament for the second time? And is this why you persist (and here I stand corrected) on forcing an elected Senate without the support of the provinces? This is quite some way to “recalibrate,” your favourite word of late. I doubt Machiavelli would have used the term, despite its apparent scientificity. It implies that the government is some sort of (military?) machine, and it gives away your unfortunate managerial tone.
Previously I have portrayed you in Cromwellian (and Orwellian) terms, but it should be noted that when England’s Charles I lost his head in 1649, thinkers turned to Machiavelli (if not The Prince, then his Discourses) to settle reasons of state, work which later inspired the Americans. An important Machiavellian quotation comes to mind here: “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are. And those few dare not gainsay the many who are backed by the majesty of the state.” Yes, reasons of state – even in a minority Parliament - appear to prevail over embarrassing issues of torture of Afghan detainees. Machiavelli was tortured, too, in his time, but as we now know (post modern, post Geneva Convention) there is bad torture, and there is also acceptable torture, preferably among ‘others’, regardless of innocence.
Reasons of state prevailed during the infamous and scandalous Dreyfus Affair, now over a century old, when the unfortunate Jewish Captain Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of treason and imprisoned on Devil’s Island. According to the far-Right at the time, he deserved punishment (even if he was not guilty) because the French Army could not be dishonoured. Similarly whistleblower Richard Colvin can be maligned by a Minister of the Crown for speaking the truth – only to be supported by well over a hundred other diplomat types, all truth-seekers for our nation.
Apparent reasons of state versus the sovereignty of Parliament, and you Mr. Harper have opted for the classical republican state, because you never much admired those Gothic arches in Ottawa, which incidentally never made their way into Machiavelli’s Italy – and into his own preoccupation with Roman history. Moreover, we are a nation committed to war (without much debate, if at all, mind you), and according to Machiavelli (I am sure you have heard this, Mr. Harper): “The first way to lose your state is to neglect the art of war; the first way to win a state is to be skilled in the art of war.”
But what kind of war are we fighting may I ask? It is certainly not a world-type war, thankfully. And how can we teach democracy by proroguing Parliament? More importantly, how can we bring democracy to Afghanistan when tribal culture expects that men marry their first cousins? What kind of society are we defending? Our men and women are sacrificing their lives to change a people by means of guns and weapons? Afghanistan is not “medieval” (as some on the ground commentators have observed): it belongs further in the Dark Ages, or earlier. No wonder Afghanistan foiled Alexander the Great, the British and the Russians before us.
In writing to you Mr. Harper (and here I borrow from Machiavelli) “I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined.” The first time you prorogued Parliament you brought about a constitutional crisis, pitching one part of Canada against another. The second time you prorogued Parliament you are doing the same. Your fundamental lack of respect for the democratic processes of Parliament is “dissimulated” (a favourite Machiavellian concept) by your efforts to change the Senate – completely, and without the support of the provinces.
Sometimes you like to think of yourself as a “lion” (in a sweater) and many other times you are wily – like a “fox”, but most of your activity involves trying to escape a bad reputation – about which Machiavelli warns. “Escape” is a key word because you do an awful lot of it, partly thanks to the general public now satiated by federal politics these days - and often because of a once reliable media. “For intellectual training” Machiavelli recommends that “the prince must read history” for that is something you cannot escape. But if you only confine yourself to Roman history, as does that other prince of tutors you have (let’s call him Tom), you will be reduced to a rather uninspired – yes, a morally low - picture of democracy (as there was none). The Roman political culture best featured ‘reason’, (international)‘law’, ‘government’ and an eventually despotic empire but no Athenian demos – the people. In its later stages the Romans probably learned something about freedom from the ancient German (Anglo-Saxon type) tribes, if you consider Tacitus.
I am afraid Mr. Prime Minister that history has escaped you. Both you and Machiavelli trash the proverb “he who builds on the people builds on mud” but in going from the issue of Afghan detainees to prorogation to another constitutional rumble in the space of a week you are no longer the “wise prince [who] should rely on what he controls.” I am afraid you have watched too many movies in your youth, and you represent, in my eyes, a kind of constitutional Rambo. “A shrewd prince should adopt a middle way” – and here you not only fail Machiavelli but notably what once was key to the Canadian identity.
Sincerely,
Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.
cc www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com
cc joehueglin@bellnet.ca
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Letter to my MP, James Moore, Minister of Heritage
The Honourable James Moore, MP
Minister of Heritage
2603 Saint Johns Street
Port Moody, BC
V3H 2B5
Minister of Heritage
2603 Saint Johns Street
Port Moody, BC
V3H 2B5
03 January 2010
Dear James Moore,
I am writing to express my complete dismay at the decision of your party leader, prime minister Stephen Harper, to prorogue Parliament for the second time in two years. These evasive manoeuvres amount to an open defiance of Parliament and the people of Canada, the voters, and we have now plunged further down the slippery slope of cynical electoral unaccountability. The only members of the public who voted for the prime minister were his Calgary constituents: he is not a President, thankfully, and he has no authority to abuse dusty instruments from the Canadian Constitution and Westminster model, denying us representation.
The Conservative Party has exposed its latent illiberalism, and the caucus (with the cabinet) resembles numerous little Quislings, obedient only to ‘party’ principles and so-called ‘leadership’ at the expense of Canadian democracy and its once respected traditions. May I remind you that your party only received 36% of the popular vote in the last election and that you have effectively closed the doors on the remaining 64%, if not on some of your own supporters who still cherish the democratic way of life.
Given that you will now have more time on your hands, I presume the decency of a reply is in order, for there is far more at issue than your party’s Machiavellian short term political advantage. There is no transparency, only subterfuge – and an unpalatable calculation that assails countless generations of accrued political values. The 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta will be coming up in 5 years, and pretty soon we will have nothing to celebrate, at least not in Canada. Detaining Parliament and its elected representatives is no answer in a modern democracy.
I hope I make myself clear.
Sincerely,
Joerge Dyrkton, D.Phil.
cc http://www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com/
cc joe.hueglin@bellnet.ca
cc http://www.joergedyrkton.blogspot.com/
cc joe.hueglin@bellnet.ca
Friday, January 1, 2010
Prorogation for the nation. Harper's exercises in selective democracy.
So Harper has done it again, with one phone call and no public appearance. Happy New Year, Canada! We have Orwell's "1984" in 2010. Parliament is prorogued for the second time in two years. Apparently Harper has nothing to hide, but detains our elected members. Now we can all watch the Olympics in Peace and Harmony, feeding on political pablum, laced with illiberalism and unaccountability.
I am a liberal to the extent that I value our Parliament and its institutional history, or, rather, what remains of it. Harper is so illiberal he makes a mockery of democracy, and for once I agree with Andrew Coyne, who blogs that Parliament should meet somewhere else. (See his "What's at stake.") The last time our Parliament was prorogued I suggested they meet at a Tennis Court, a reference to the beginning of the French Revolution. Ostensibly they should meet in "half" a Tennis Court to show a government in abeyance, if not arbitrary and beyond acceptance.
Harper's New Year's gift to Canadians puts the ill-fated Dion-led coalition in a much better light. It failed because the Canadian public was not willing to accept a coalition that was not "elected" as such, a spurious notion in a minority parliament. The minority government is illegitimate because we did not vote to prorogue (or let's say detain) our national institition, for opportune periods (another "time-out"?). He has no mandate to close down, at his cynical convenience, on our elected representatives, their committees and our conventions - on our Parliament - and we are now on the slippery slope.
As the Olympic torch drives its way across Canada, I am reminded of another modern-day torch relay begun (yes, the first) in 1936, Hitler's Germany - and the Berlin Olympics. That nation was not much bothered by pesky politics and parliament because the Reichstag, too, had been torched. The only time Canada's Parliament went up in flames was in the height of World War One - and we blamed the Germans. If our House of Commons gets destroyed, I think we'll have to blame the Prime Minister: he loves playing with fire. And I can just imagine the Ottawa headlines: "Harper fingers piano as Parliament burns."
I am a liberal to the extent that I value our Parliament and its institutional history, or, rather, what remains of it. Harper is so illiberal he makes a mockery of democracy, and for once I agree with Andrew Coyne, who blogs that Parliament should meet somewhere else. (See his "What's at stake.") The last time our Parliament was prorogued I suggested they meet at a Tennis Court, a reference to the beginning of the French Revolution. Ostensibly they should meet in "half" a Tennis Court to show a government in abeyance, if not arbitrary and beyond acceptance.
Harper's New Year's gift to Canadians puts the ill-fated Dion-led coalition in a much better light. It failed because the Canadian public was not willing to accept a coalition that was not "elected" as such, a spurious notion in a minority parliament. The minority government is illegitimate because we did not vote to prorogue (or let's say detain) our national institition, for opportune periods (another "time-out"?). He has no mandate to close down, at his cynical convenience, on our elected representatives, their committees and our conventions - on our Parliament - and we are now on the slippery slope.
As the Olympic torch drives its way across Canada, I am reminded of another modern-day torch relay begun (yes, the first) in 1936, Hitler's Germany - and the Berlin Olympics. That nation was not much bothered by pesky politics and parliament because the Reichstag, too, had been torched. The only time Canada's Parliament went up in flames was in the height of World War One - and we blamed the Germans. If our House of Commons gets destroyed, I think we'll have to blame the Prime Minister: he loves playing with fire. And I can just imagine the Ottawa headlines: "Harper fingers piano as Parliament burns."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)