The time when it was fun to pick on the perrenially-deranged CK of Sister Sage's Musings has long passed. If it weren't for her insistence on a state of war, your not-so-humble-scribe wouldn't bother any longer.
But CK has a gift for sometimes producing blogposts that are so outrageously and feverishly insane that it just can't be ignored. Such is the case with a recent post in which CK denigrates the majority of Canadians as sheep, merely because they are mostly centrists who don't share her extreme views:
So CK clearly recognizes that the Canadian centre is shifting toward conservative ideas and conservative values. But instead of considering the possibility that Canadians have recognized that this is because conservative ideas and conservative values are actually applicable to the real lives of the majority of Canadians than progressive values are, CK simply insists it's because the majority of Canadians allegedly don't think for themselves.
CK, like so many progessives, won't take responsibility for the lack of appeal of their inferior ideas. Rather, they simply insist that Canadians are cattle, and move on unabated.
Yet progressives likely will not stop attempting to impliment their ideas. They simply recognize that they'll have to do so in one of two ways: either by sneaking them under the civic radar -- as they did for so many years via appealing to courts in place of citizens, and by corrupting institutions such as Canada's Human Rights Commissions -- or by forcing them on Canadians through a coalition government.
CK seems to reject the notion of a Coalition, but not because she recognizes it as un-democratic. Rather, she continues to labour under the delusion that the coalition was democratic:
What CK clearly fails to understand about democracy is that it is not merely the rules that determine what is democratic. Nor do MPs decide what is democratic. Rather, citizens decide what is and is not democratic -- the Canadian people (those unthinking, Kool-Aid drinking cattle, in CK's opinion) decide what is democratic.
The Canadian people decided that the coalition was undemocratic.
The majority of the Canadian people also decided that Stephen Harper's 2010 proroguement of Parliament was undemocratic. The proroguement was well within the rules established by the Constitution -- both by written and unwritten portions of the Constitution -- while the 2008 coalition was arguably at odds with constitutional convention.
Therefore we know that the rules alone are not enough to establish a particular practice as democratic.
Yet in CK's mind, when the so-called progressive political parties get together to engineer a blatant power-grab against the will of the Canadian people, that's entirely democratic despite the aforementiojned will of the Canadian people.
It's certainly fair to wonder what else CK would like to push into place against the will of the Canadian people.
That's the insidious implications of CK's self-serving rhetorical trick. When the majority of Canadians are deemed to be unthinking and uncritical, their will loses any and all meaning. Once the will of the Canadian citizenry loses meaning, progressives could justify ramming anything they like through, regardless of the objections of others.
That's the irony of CK -- clearly not being able to recognize totalitarianism -- insisting that Stephen Harper is a totalitarian who would abolish elections if he ever won a majority government. CK's own vision for the country is a vision of totalitarian tyranny -- with her and her cohorts as the tyrants.
This is why people like CK can never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power, and must be isolated from them at every opportunity. After all, she belongs to an ideological cabal to whom human life only has value so long as it helps them advance their extrene ideological agenda.
We can already see the contempt CK holds for the will of the majority of Canadian citizens if that will won't help her advance her aforementioned extreme ideological agenda.
I hope she's getting the "help" she so desperately needs.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad that CK wasn't aware that polling at the time showed that 60% or more of Canadians disagreed with the Coalition of the Losers (as they can now be dubbed after Mr. Harper pointed out last week that only winners get to form coalitions). That means that roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the people that disagreed with the Coalition idea were NOT Conservatives.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, technically the Coalition was according to the rules, but it wasn't the will of the people (as you are pointing out), and for that reason, it would have been viewed as illegitimate.
The thing is that there's an argument that the coalition was not within the rules.
ReplyDeleteThe King/Byng affair could be argued to establish the notion that government is meant to be replaced by election rather than at the discretion of the Governor General.
That's the fun thing about British style constitutionalism. The unwritten portions of it -- which includes legal and historical precedents -- often complicate what the rules actually are.