Posts
Yesterday Christine Elliott sent out an e-mail titled "Poll: Scrapping Human Rights Tribunal = Faith Based Funding." The suggestion was that the proposal to abolish the Human Rights Tribunal could lose the PC Party the next election. She backs up this assertion:
Asked if they'd consider the Ontario PC Party as an alternative to Dalton McGuinty's Liberals in the next election, 42.6% of respondents said yes, 38.8% no. Asked whether they'd consider voting the same way if the PC party's new leader wanted to scrap the tribunal, that support plunged to 25.2%.
I despise the kangaroo courts that lay claim to protecting 'human rights.' They do not protect rights but violate people's basic rights to due process, rights that go as far back as the Magna Carta.
The reality is, however, that most people haven't heard much about this issue. They hear the words 'human rights' then they hear the words 'abolish' and they rightly become suspicious. Most people don't know what happened to Ezra Levant or Mark Styne; sadly most people don't pay that close attention to politics.
In a way Ms. Elliott is right. If such a policy was proposed in the middle of the whirlwind of and election, it could easily be used to crush the PCs. The Liberals could use the people's ignorance to paint such policy as being heartless or malicious. As a not so great Prime Minister once said, "[An election] is not the time, I don't think, to get involved in very, very serious discussions."
This isn't to say that politicians of principle should ignore the issue. Far from it, the ignorance of the public means that the politicians should tackle it with greater energy. There is time before the next election to educate the people. To tell them why the HRC needs to be disbanded.
Sometimes politicians have to bend to the aggregated will of the people. Sometimes a politician has to lead.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I suppose that when you feel that politicians should blindly follow rhetorical leaders you will never vote for a leader who takes on the issues, initiates dialog and education on his own terms and then asks the newly informed voters to select whichever course makes more sense.
Why do you feel that after June 27, 2009 there is no time to engage the elctorate in meaningful dialog?
I believe that most Ontarians will see what a travesty the HRC's are given even a small amount of truth.
Apparently you don't.
Umm...BillM...did you read the last two paragraphs?
Christine Elliot makes a good point.Liberals will pound the words "human rights" and "abolish" and connect them via their media.Sooooo lets not go there.Keep an eye on that HRC?Definetly.Quietly catalogue their hypocrisy or wrongdoing if any.Then whack the Libs over the head with it,if it becomes an issue in the future.
Hugh, what exactly are you trying to say then? Do you support a leader who leads or who bends?
"Sometimes politicians have to bend to the aggregated will of the people. Sometimes a politician has to lead."
So the answer to your question is sometimes bend sometimes lead.
Post a Comment