Sunday, May 10, 2009
Michael Ignatieff and the Moral Quagmire
I have tried to stay away from criticizing Michael Ignatieff, because he is the only political leader who can bring down Stephen Harper, whether we like it or not.
I was even prepared to cut him some slack for what he had to say today about the Coalition.
If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.
“I'm in politics to unify people, not to divide them...There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me.”
Even though I don't agree with him. Legitimacy wasn't a problem. The country is as divided back then as it is today. And killing the Coalition that represented the views of most Canadians wasn't a grand unifying act. It was an act of supreme political cowardice.
A decision that condemned hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians to lives of misery because they don't qualify for E.I. And left the country, at a time of crisis, in the hands of a bunch of Con thugs who don't know what they're doing.
And because actions have consequences Omar Khadr is still in Guantanamo, and Abousfian Abdelrazik is still stranded in Khartoum. And so on and so on.
But whatever...it's no use crying about what might have been.
But how can Ignatieff and the Liberals justify their support for this wretched bill?
Under Canada's proposed new drug laws, an 18-year-old who shares a joint with a 17-year-old friend could end up in jail.
The Conservative government proposes to automatically jail dealers and growers at a time when several American states, most recently New York, have retreated from mandatory minimum sentences, saying they are a glaring symbol of the failed U.S. war on drugs.
I realize that Stephen Harper is playing cheap politics, but does that mean the Liberals have to jump into the moral quagmire and roll around with him?
Just because they are too AFRAID to do the right thing?
While the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois have voiced strong opposition to Bill C-15, the Liberals have indicated they will support it when it comes back to the Commons for third reading.
Why? Not because they think it is sound policy; they acknowledge in private that it is not. Rather, the Liberals do not want to give the Conservatives an opening to accuse them of being "soft" on crime. This is craven politics at its worst.
I know politics is politics eh? But cowardice has consequences.
What kind of country makes its unemployed suffer, and would fill its jails with kids?
And when is enough ENOUGH ?