[Previous entry: "Gordon on money"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "SOLO HQ"]
12/02/2005 Archived Entry: "More on Stephen Harper"
A reader -- who clearly has a better view of the Canadian Conservative leader Stephen Harper than I do -- takes me to task on my blog-comments about SH and the upcoming Canadian election. The reader presents a factual correction, for which I thank him: he claims that SH does speak French. I am willing to take the claim at face value and issue a correction herewith. (For those outside of Canada, the ability to speak French is a prerequisite to being taken serious in Quebec and elsewhere as a political candidate. I doubt if SH's bi-lingualism makes any difference to his unpopularity in Quebec. however.) My assumption of non-bilingualism may be forgiven in light SH's prominent statements against the policy. For example, he stated, ďAfter all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isnít mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. Itís a dogma which o≠ne is supposed to accept without question. Ö [M]ake no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.Ē (Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001) I happen to agree with that statement but I did form undue assumptions on the basis of it.
The reader continues to defend SH on the grounds that the politician quotes Mises and has worked with/hired libertarians. I could up the ante by admitting that SH also throws the word "libertarian" around with gay abandon...only, given his stand on gays, that might be inappropirate. Let me explain why I disagree with a positive assessment of SH, why I would feel more secure in my future if the @#&^%$!!! liberals were re-elected with a milk-toast minority government that allows them to limp and drag one leg through power. [Click on 'more' to continue.]
SH is as close to a neo-con threat that Canada has. He is far more sympathetic to Bush and to the War in Iraq than Martin or the other party leaders. Indeed, there is reasonable concern that Canada would resembled a 51st state under the leadership of SH. For example, if SH had been in power after 9-11, I have no doubt that Canadian troops would be on Iraqi soil in the same manner as British ones. I have no doubt the defense shield program that Bush almost commanded Canada to go along with -- a program that required de facto American control of Canadian airspace for military purposes -- would have come to fruitition. SH either outright lies about the Canadian attitude toward Bush and the War or he is cut off from reality. According to a FOX News story, "Opposition leader Stephen Harper has told Fox News in the U.S. that most Canadians outside Quebec support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, despite our government's decision not to take part in the war." What a lie! What a liar! Or, rather, there is an escape clause; he may be merely delusional, and what a recommendation that is for a political leader.
I could go on and on and on about the aspects of SH that I find terrifying, repugnant or deeply disturbing. For example, SH shares the religious zealotry of Bush. BTW, religion is none of my business as a personal matter but it becomes a threat to me and mine when coupled with politics. It is no surprise that he takes very repressive stands on "vice/virtue" issues like the decriminalization of marijuana. But why go on? The mere fact that SH is boola-boola "Yeah team Bush!" about Iraq means I need explore the depth of his disgusting being no deeper. Yuck and yikes! Most of all, I blame him for pushing me into adopting a comparatively "good" opinion of liberal leader Paul Martin who has nay-sayed GWT, albeit with reluctance. I prefer Martin. And now you need to excuse me. I must go shower.