An actual verbatim letter I emailed to Canadian PM Martin earlier
this week;
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
Even before the current sponsorship scandal became the sole 'talk
of the town' (and country) recently, it had, previous to then
been suggested in some quarters (See
http://www.prolifeinfo.com/bio193.html ) that the Assisted Human
Reproduction Act, unless passed by the expected Spring election,
would most probably die in transit due to opposition to its
passing 'as is', both within and without the Liberal Party
itself. Whether or not that's the actual case, I'm in no position
to judge.
But if it is the case, then the danger also exists that certain
boards and agencies, such as the CIHR (Canadian Institutes of
Health Research) will once again do an 'end run' (as Stockwell
Day termed it) on Parliament as they did two years ago (See
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/02030401.html ), when Dr.
Bernstein released funding guidelines for stem cell research
allowing for immediate funding for "destructive research on human
embryos, despite the lack of federal legislation on the matter."
Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but unless Parliament passes a law
specifically proscribing against a certain action (thus making it
'against the law'), then there is absolutely nothing that the
government can do to prevent these and similar institutes, or
individuals from going ahead and do whatever they please in this
field, or stop whatever they are doing even now. In other words,
whatever that is not specifically legislated as being 'against
the law' is necessarily allowable, as I understand it.
And, if that is the situation, then, knowing the mindset of these
doctors and research scientists, and all those so-called ethics
and/or funding boards that back them up will, if history is any
indicator, that they indeed will have no compunction at all in
doing just that, that being whatever the heck they feel like
doing, once again being totally contemptuous of their federal
legislative 'masters', and not just assume those role for
themselves, but also see it as a green light to once again 'play
God' over human lives, as they themselves solely deem fit. And
that would be a bad thing.
They would, once again, make a total mockery of Parliament, a
body of men and women that unfortunately traditionally and
predictably forfeits its rights, obligations and duties as
lawmakers whenever it comes to such controversial issues such as
these, whether by deliberate commission, or omission. You know
it, I know it, and they know it. And they are counting on the
same to be the case now.
The very same degree and scope of contempt for Parliament
exhibited by the medical field has also been played out by those
within the legal community as well, with judges interpreting and
applying certain murky laws the way they have deemed fit, not as
it was necessarily intended and written. And Parliament has
nobody else to blame for it allowing it to happen but itself.
And now, since the current sponsorship scandal has become the
feeding frenzy for the opposition that it has become, in equal
and opposite proportions to the efforts of virtually all the
members of the Liberal Party to defend against it, it would
appear as though that any further amendments to the 'cloning
bill' is as good as dead for the forseeable future.
It seems that all 'other matters' except that of the 'sponsorship
scandal' now before Parliament have been put on the backburner,
with mainly the Conservatives milking the scandal for all its
worth, with zero intention of doing anything but to keep the heat
going under that particular pot as hot as it can muster, as long
as it can muster it, making the water boil just as furiously as
the current perceived pathos in the Canadian electorate's minds
are as well, which is very real as you yourself acknowledged.
And now, to the point (it takes me a while, sometimes). I'd like
to put forth an idea to you, one that on the face of it may seem
quite ludicrous, but in the end, after you consider it, may find
to hold at least having some merit. As I said, I'm usually a
Liberal voter, traditionally at any rate, and also have a vested
interest in seeing all those 'other matters', including the
'cloning bill', now submerged, being brought back to the surface
for its consideration. That is my primary and sole 'angle' or
'slant' on the whole deal; and will switch my allegiance to
whichever party that best reflects my own mood on those more
critical matters. For now, I will assume the upcoming 'true'
Martin government, one given a new mandate, will best pursue that
ideal.
With that in mind, I think it is best to put the 'sponsorship
scandal' where it belongs, on at least 'mid-burner'. To do that
best requires a little bit of flexibility of thought, 'thinking
outside the preconceived box', as it were.
It's a ploy that is quick, dirty, and yet, if it works, is rather
diabolically clever if I do say so myself.
Consider standing up during Question Period, and saying that you
will instantly dissolve Parliament and thus call for a new
election if and when all three opposing parties call for the
same, or by mid-May, whichever comes first. I'll let you think
about that for a second, on the face of it.
In the mind of the electorate, the Liberal Party's biggest
problem is perceived trust, and credibility, especially in light
of what it knew, and when it knew it when all the shenanigans in
Quebec were going on. Most pointedly, as the ultimate 'point man'
on the issue, what you as the current Prime Minister himself
knew, and when. I don't think that I'm divulging any secrets
here, but whether by mere perceptions or ultimate truth, it is
what the electorate believes about your own trustworthiness and
credibility that will either make the 'new' government 'sink or
swim' in the next election. That's a classic case of a
'no-brainer', in my view.
I know enough about the Canadian political process to know that
it solely at the PM's discretion and pleasure (short of when its
term simply runs out, of course) as to when to call an election.
It is entirely his (your) decision, alone to make. Traditionally,
that is truly one of the most powerful weapons at his and his
government's and party's disposal, as to the timing of a general
election. I need not give any historical examples as to how that
'timing' in of and by itself has turned out to be 'the' critical
factor determining the incumbent government's return to power, or
otherwise.
But these aren't exactly 'traditional' times. I can't think of
any other period of Canadian political history when the factors
and variables involved has put a party in power in such a tenuous
position, one seeminly based solely upon 'trust' and
'credibility', and very little else.
Putting myself in the mind of the average voter from now on, I
will go through the two perceived main scenarios concerning what
just might happen in the weeks and months ahead, given certain
stances the government may take. Then I will counter with what
might happen if my suggested action is taken instead.
Government Stance #1: "Ride it out, hope for the best (or less
damning 'actual truth') from the inquiry, hope that the
electorate will get over their anger, and eventually regain their
trust in the party and government, and just go for it when the
time comes.
My take:) Any inquiry is inevitably bound to take longer than the
electorate's patience on either that issue, or with the
government's perceived hesitation to call an election, clearing
the matter, until that is done. Is the government afraid of what
the inquiry is 'bound' to find, thus losing whatever trust and
credibility it has even now? That is a more probable conclusion
in the voter's mind than its opposite number, that those within
the government, especially yourself as PM himself are somehow
confident that they will be cleared by that inquiry eventually,
which could take literally years. In short, by delaying for
whatever truth may be revealed, the voter will instead see it as
just another stalling tactic, that it is afraid of what will come
out, and that it merely expects the electorate to conveniently
forget about the whole matter.
Going this route also allows the opposition parties, especially
the Conservative Party who is without an actual leader, to
continue making hay of the issue, leaving other important issues
of the day on the backburner, and subsequently select a leader
from within their midst who is perhaps most able to capitalize on
the current scandal specifically, and one who generally can be
perceived as being 'trustworthy and credible', in counterpart to
those doubts held about yourself, and those most closely
surrounding you, whether in caucus or not.
Conclusion:) This is probably the second worst course of action
the government can possibly take, from my viewpoint. It will be
perceived generally as a 'stalling tactic', made hay as such by
the opposition and pundits alike, while in actual fact only gives
the opposition the maximum amount of time to gather their ammo,
select a suitable 'General', etc. for the fight ahead.
My Solution:) By allowing the opposition parties decide as to
when to 'clear the air' by virtue of a general election, you take
the wind out of the sails of their inevitable charges of
'stalling', despite whatever the perceived or actual intent of
the government may be by doing so by the pundits. It also puts
the current public perception of the government as being
'untrustworthy and not credible' on its very head. If the 'ball',
that being 'clearing the air' is passed to the opposition 'court'
to ultimately decide, all questions of hidden 'intent' of the
government are immediately squelched. The 'ball', now being in
their own court solely, becomes their own worst enemy, not ally.
It is now they who are 'stalling' for whatever intent they may
have, not the government.
And the government comes out smelling like the proverbial rose,
IMHO. (In my humble opinion :)
Scenario 2) "Call a snap election, let the people decide the
facts upon the matter of the scandal, and since the Conservatives
don't presently have a leader they'll be left reeling, and heck,
we're still ahead in the polls probably, all things being equal"
My take:) This will no doubt look like a baldfaced attempt to
capitalize upon those very facts; that the Official Opposition
has no current leader, that since the Liberals are still
(slightly) ahead in the polls, they are simply assuming they can
regain power before any truths are established by the sponsorship
scandal inquiry, thus clearing it, before it can do further
damage to it. As a voter, I would choose in this case, the devil
that I do NOT know. I would think the Liberals have been in power
too darned long, and are, once again, showing the very same
contempt and arrogance they have for both Parliament, and the
average Canadian as they ever have before. They are afraid of the
truth of the degree and scope of their corruptness, which is
their wont when in power too long, to come out before we have a
chance to decide upon the matter.
Conclusion:) The very worst decision you could possible make.
Perhaps (slightly) politically expedient in the short term, but
actually quite suicidal in both short and long term. And the fact
that so many previous Liberal governments employed that sort of
tactic before (successfully yet cynically so, as you well know)
will do absolutely nothing to restore voter confidence in the
current Martin government to proceed with a new mandate. The
pundits, and all opposition parties will make total hay over it,
and coming on top of the 'current' anger already existing against
the government, would be a truly idiotic move, in my view.
My Solution:) By being magnanimous to the Conservatives, by
allowing them to call the timing of the election according to
their own pleasure, so long as the other two main parties agree,
the above nightmare scenario cannot happen as described. The
pundits may clue in to the government's true motives, yet in the
minds of the electorate who do the actual voting, and who as a
whole don't really listen to the pundits too much anyhow, the
government is just being as 'fair' and 'honest' as they can be,
and therefore ultimately 'trustworthy and credible enough' to be
re-elected, as opposed to an opposition that is now 'still' in
disarray, figuring out at this point what happened to the 'wind'
in their sails, now suddenly gone. They will be, as they began,
in disarray, without a clear leader, and without clear direction.
Finally:), I think the tactic of calling for a mid-May election,
at the latest, is a good compromise in any case. First, it
doesn't change the perceived prior agenda of your government one
iota. Prior to the scandal, a Spring election is what was
expected, in any case. By holding to that timeframe, nobody can
accuse you of manipulating the calendar, of being opportunistic,
to best suit yourself in light of the current crisis.
Going any longer would force you to call a Fall election, which
by that time, will give the opposition enough heads-up to know
what's actually behind the original motive of letting them set
the electoral agenda, and therefore make hay of that as well, if
they possibly can. Furthermore, by that time, something even more
lethal could surface from the inquiry, more probably than not
showing you as being the corrupt ***** that you truly are, you
fat French piece of *****, thus putting the final nails in the
government's coffin. Like Sheila Fraser, the electorate will be
'angry all over again'. A Fall election doesn't look promising,
no matter what.
My suggestion, while it allows the Conservatives to indeed elect
a leader in the interim (showing your generous magnanimity all
the while), it takes the 'fury', the 'fire' out their delegates,
and resulting convention while doing do. Use your imagination to
differentiate between the two scenarios during said convention.
Take the fire out of their bellies, Mr. Prime Minister, and let
them remain the Frankenstein monster of a party that they are, at
heart. Let them tear each other apart, not you.
By taking my idea to heart, and practice, it shows you as being
not just being magnanimous, full of fair-play and democratic, but
truly honest, trustworthy, with absolutely nothing to hide from
any inquiry, no matter how long it takes to do it. Patient yet
demanding vindication within a reasonably short period of time,
as would anyone else accused of an alleged 'crime' in the world
of jurisprudence.
I personally think the idea is brilliant, if previously untested
in the political arena. From where I sit, I think the key is to
'take the wind out of the sails' of all the opposition parties,
and to truly allow them to decide when the electorate is best to
decide what is what in the entire matter, up until the time you
would have otherwise probably called for the election in any
case. While appearing to make you and your government
'vulnerable', you actually do the opposite in this case, since
the entire matter hinges upon 'trustworthiness', and
'credibility'. You have said you have nothing to hide, so be it.
Yet the Catch-22 of proceeding along the scenarios 1 and 2 above
truly will destroy this present government, all things being
equal, and status quo. I am just being honest.
It also allows the various opposition parties to battle between
themselves as to when exactly to hold that general election
before mid-May, all the while, all things again being equal and
status quo, probably regaining the public's trust in the
government, and allowing those 'backburner' issues to come back
to the front where they rightfully belong.
If there is some way that that idea could possibly backfire, I
haven't been able to conceive of one yet, let alone one worse
than the above two scenarios that the government would otherwise
take.
Anyhow, Mr. Prime Minister, I think that you should seriously
consider the suggestion. I personally think that a Martin
government would be best for this country at this stage, the one
best able to govern the nation amongst the choices given.
I have no real interest in raw politics per se, except to see
politicians, aka my legislators passing strict laws regarding
matters I do have an interest in, such as the 'cloning bill'.
I have been in recent correspondence with one of your closest and
most trusted colleagues, who may or may not approach you with a
similar letter I sent him on this very matter (and a previous
letter concerning the 'cloning' issue). I will leave it up to him
as to what he wishes to do with it. Nobody else has seen the
light of day of this email, nor will they, ever. You have my word
as a Christian, and that transcends everything in my world as an
absolute oath. You need not reply to this message.
Most sincerely, and with great regards, good luck, and GodSpeed,
and hope that I can too vote for your party when the time comes.
Fred Flintstone,
Bedrock, CA 90125
.
|
