Monday, April 05, 2010

More From the "Progressive" Left -- Canada as Animal Farm

A post yesterday about a lunatic screed written by committed chickenwanker CK of Sister Sage's Musings has, unsurprisingly, offered a goldrush of insight into the workings of CK's feverish mind.

In a comment since made here at the Nexus (where CK indulges herself in the privilege of posting comments, yet bans unwelcome commenters from her own blog), CK makes herself a little more clear on what her precise vision for Canada is -- and it isn't pretty (grammatical errors, incoherence and all):
" I never said Quebec should never have anymore seats. I don't think there should be anymore seats. Don't you cons prefer smaller government anyway? 30 new seats would certainly expand government further at about 25 000 000$: Don't you cons hate wasteful spending?"
If CK knew anything about Canadian politics, she might actually understand one point that renders her entire argument moot:

In Canada, government and Parliament are actually separate entities. Parliament is not the government of Canada, but rather its legislature.

Within Canadian democracy, the party that is designated to govern by the Governor General (according to Constitutional convention, the party that produces a working plurality or majority of seats) becomes the governing party, and is responsible to Parliament for its management of government institutions.

Ergo, expanding Canada's Parliament does not increase the size of its government. It merely increases the size of its legislature.

But there's more to CK's lunacy:
"Allow me to introduce myself here with specifics.

Help your fellow man; needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few; the working class before big corporations and eradicating poverty and equal access to health care and other social programs, justice for all = good
Pay particular attentio to the "justice for all".

Canadian democracy is based on the principle of representation. We elect our MPs to represent us.

Yet, as it turns out, not all Canadians are represented equally.

For example, in 2009 the province of Quebec was determined to have 7,828,900 citizens living there. Divided by the 75 seats Quebec has in the House of Commons, Quebec has one seat for every 104,385 people living there.

Alberta, on the other hand, has 3,687,700 citizens living here according to 2009 numbers. Divided by Alberta's 28 seats, this leaves Alberta with one seat for every 131,703 people living there.

Ontario has 13,069,200 citizens living there according to the same 2009 numbers. Divided by Ontario's 106 seats, Ontarians have one seat for every 123,294 people living there.

British Columbia has 4,455,200 citizens leaving there according to the 2009 figures. Divided by BC's 36 seats, British Columbians have one seat for every 123,755 people living there.

So, the question simply must be posed to CK:

How, precisely, is this "just"?

And then one remembers that to individuals like CK, justice doesn't necessarily entail all citizens being treated equally. One remembers that, in the minds of individuals like CK, justice requires that some citizens enjoy greater benefits than others.

Such as, for example, Quebeckers, who under the current status quo, are "more equal" than Albertans. And that's "justice".

That, by the way, shouldn't be mistaken for a "superior equality" of generic Quebeckers over generic Albertans. That's a "superior equality" of Quebec women over Albertan women, a "superior equality" of Quebec LGBTs over Albertan LGBTs, a "superior equality" of Quebec minorities over Albertan minorities.

It's even a "superior equality" of Quebec francophones over Albertan francophones.

CK's vision of Canada is essentially a vision of Canada as Animal Farm. But to CK, it's conservatives who must always wind up being "less equal" than other Canadians. Thus she opposes provinces that tend to vote Conservative (and those that are voting Conservative in greater numbers) receiving more seats in the House of Commons.

It has nothing at all to do with the size of government. CK simply hates conservatives:
"Paranoia, Greed, bigotry, useless wars to keep corrupt governments in power = bad.

Unfortunately, the latter is all we see of today's conservatism: no redeeming social qualities here. You included. Not my fault you can't successfully defend irredeemable character flaws.
Considering who CK takes her orders from, it's impossible to read a statement like that without having to suppress a snicker.

Considering that CK fawns over the deeply bigoted Bloc Quebecois when its leaders say something that make conservatives angry, it's impossible to take her seriously on the topic of bigotry.

But, once again, even the "irredeemable character flaws" of a movement she mistakenly believes to be progressive (Quebec separatism is actually starkly regressive and reactionary) are not deemed to be equal to those she attributes to conservatives.

Even established bigots like the BQ are "more equal" than the alleged bigots in Alberta.

It should probably be rather amusing that CK would accuse conservatives of hating Quebec while she herself strikes positions that are starkly anti-Alberta, anti-British Columbia, and anti-Ontario.

In CK's fevered mind, in the course of being anti-conservative, absolutely anything goes. Even opposing increasing representation for the majority of Canadians so they can be closer to parity with Quebec and the Maritimes.

It's just another reason for Canadians to oppose the extreme agenda of lunatics like CK by any democratic means necessary, and by any democratic means available.

It's crystal clear that a great many Canadians cannot afford to settle for being "less equal" than CK and her cohorts -- which is exactly what Canada's extreme progressive fringe wants.


  1. The Bloc, NDP supported a motion to outlaw the use of english in all Federal Government buildings (recently). They have also put forwad a motion in requiring the Supreme Court Judges competent in both official languages French-English.

    CK has zero interest in being fair or balanced.

    We were witness to fellow clowns trampling our Charter rights in Ottawa at U of O.

  2. I'm not sure where you are going with this issue, Patrick, as there are some serious matters involving the functioning of the Canadian federation, over-representation of Atlantic Canada on a per capita basis in the Commons, under-representation of western provinces and Ontario, and you are simply using the issue as a club against Quebec and a handful of bloggers, part of the Cynic's periphery, who don't know where they are going with it either, or exactly what perspective they are offering.

    On the first point, Quebec is being painted as the culprit, responsible for the imbalance, whereas as it stands they are closer to a balanced representation by population position, taken Canada-wide, with the imbalance at both other ends, Western Canada and Atlantic Canada.

    We are to some extent prisoners of our constitutional history, and there are some issues for which there are no quick fixes.

    But there is a tendency, particularly on blogging tory blogs, to portray any issue, be it parliamentary representation, or equalization, or whatever else may crop up as a major confrontation in which Quebec is the only other interested party and the sole beneficiary of existing policy.

    It would be interesting to hear what Atlantic Canada has to say on the matter and what their proposals are.

    I think your obsession with the Cynic's crew leads you to make excessive characterizations as well, for example describing them as "evil", when for the most part most blogging tories subject to their attacks would describe them as "annoying", or something in that vein. Your characterization of the Bloc as racial bigots is likewise excessive, they are separatists, promote a constitutional and societal perspective of Quebec without and outside of Canada, but I see no evidence of bigotry and derogatory characterization of English-speaking Canadians, not in the vein of what you are suggesting.

    That, more often than not, is to be found on blogging tory blogs, in the sense of mean-spirited attacks and comments directed towards francophone Quebec. Given this mindset expressed not merely by contributors, but likewise by bloggers on some blogging tory blogs, to the effect that they could resolve Canada's perceived problems if they could induce Quebec to leave or persuade Canadians to show them the door, one might expect they would offer their services to Duceppe in organizing his speaking tour throughout English Canada, with the object of promoting their own exclusionist agenda.

  3. The Bloc are sent to represent Quebec and are accountable for their actions in parliament.

    The Bloc had no difficulty in replacing the 143 seats that won 57% of the ridings outside Quebec. (133/233)Take a look at the regional breakdown. Alberta would have been reduced to one seat in the coalition gov't.

    If the voters in Quebec want to increase their voice in the government they could vote for a federal party.

    The Bloc will NEVER form the government. As a regional protest party whose main goal is to destabilize the federal gov't and secede from Canada, the problem lies in the hands of the voters in Quebec.

    For us outside Quebec we are fed up with propping up a socialist provincial gov't that attacks either provinces, restricts language rights and demands the majority of funding in this federation.

    Fix your own backyard clean up the corruption and abuses, get the public inquiries started. Stop dumping raw sewage into the St. Lawrence river.

  4. Canadiansense proves my point with his outburst.

    Is this about seeking proportional representation to the Canadian Parliament for those regions which are currently underrepresented, which is what this legislation is supposed to address, or is this an exercise
    to seek a rationale to dump on Quebec.

    Everything is thrown into the bag here, the Bloc opposition in the federal Parliament, the current Liberal government of Quebec, which has a different program and pursues a different agenda, pollution in the St Lawrence river and what have you.

    But it strays far from the issue of constitutional, parliamentary and inter-governmental discussions on powers and representation in the Commons, the Senate, and so forth.

    As to the characterization of the Bloc as far right on the basis of their nationalist perspective, that's far from the mark. If such were the case, you would expect them to be allied with the far right in Europe, Le Pen in France, and similar groups and parties on the continent. The opposite is true, the favoured ally of the PQ/ Bloc are the Socialist Party in France and similar social-democratic formations.
    If you are going to argue against their perspectives, you have to have a fair idea of what exactly you are arguing against.

  5. Dupmar, you're clearly looking for something to complain about, so I won't try very hard to disabuse you of very many notions.

    Suggesting that all Canadians should be represented as equally as possible is not "anti-Quebec". It's pro-equality.

    Equality is not anti-Quebec simply because the other provinces insist that the provinces must be equal. It's pretty clear to me at this point that Dupmar just opposes equality amongst the provinces.

    Note that I don't suggest that Quebec or the Maritime provinces should have their representation reduced in the House of Commons. The current level of representation reflects the agreements established at the foundation of confederation. Merely that any province that is, per capita, under-represented in the House of Commons should be granted additional seats until they are proportionally equal.

    Likewise, in case you didn't notice, Quebec is not being treated as the culprit. Rather, a neo-progressive worldview in which equality is only granted to those that the fringes of the progressive left think it should apply to is the culprit.

    If you find it hard to believe that Robert Peter John Day and his cabal of lunatics are evil, then you aren't paying close enough attention.

    For example, Dupmar, in matters related to a dispute between two men, it takes a particularly evil individual to decide that he'll involve another's family, and put his readers up to a scheme that, in the end, amounts to criminal harassment. It takes a particularly evil individual to be utterly unrepentant about that after the fact.


Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.