Rocky Start to New Session
I find it very interesting: so many people I know were unhappy with the Conservatives before the election, were reading the news and seeing the nonsense and decided to vote against them. And yet, the PCs still managed to pull off a majority government. I like to believe things happen for a reason or that, at the very least, good things can come out of bad situations. I have hope that, while it may take some time, the good to come out of the current bad will be clear.
There has been so much in the news this past week against our latest installment of the PC government that if I had the time to write, there would be at least daily posts. It has not been good news. And we have another 4 years with them. If this is how things are starting off...
The thing to get my attention today was the following article by Don Braid from the Calgary Herald:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Braid+Scapegoat+turn+tables+former+Alberta+employers/6719269/story.html
The former chief elections officer, Lorne Gibson, is not happy with the current government. The PCs this week, through Justice Minister Jonathan Denis, have said that it was Gibson's recommendations they were following when deciding to pass a law to keep proven illegal donations completely secret, in a way that sort of wiped their hands of the issue, like they had no part in it. One could argue that since he wanted to secretly investigate, it was only naturally assumed that the results would be kept secret. But I would have to disagree. Only a government used to being anti-transparent would assume such a thing. Whether he said it or not has nothing to do with the fact that we have a government that believes in keeping such things secret and would act accordingly. A person can make a recommendation; the government ought to have the sense to decide whether it's a truly good idea or not. How is this any different than a child misbehaving due to someone else's words (correctly understood or misunderstood), then, when caught, blaming the other person? There is a clear lack of integrity. And not on the former chief elections officer's part.
How can I, after having made my way through Social Studies 30-2 this past semester, looking at different ideologies and how governments have misused their power under various ideologies, not look at our provincial government and say, "Hey, there is something seriously wrong here!" Grade 12 students covering Social Studies 30-2 learn about some of the governments that like to keep secrets, especially secrets about illegal activities. Two that come to mind: the Soviet Union (especially under Stalin) and Nazi Germany. And here we see our provincial government following suit. You clearly don't need to have a totalitarian government to engage in unethical practices, to try to keep activities secret. But where does such secrecy lead? It should be a red flag to us all.
We have a political party that has been in power for over 40 years. Not one that has simply been in power, but one that has been pretty much unchallenged. That's a lot of time to practise behaving inappropriately--in secret. What other things have happened that we don't know about?
--
On another note, Lukaszuk is quoted in the article as saying,
There has been so much in the news this past week against our latest installment of the PC government that if I had the time to write, there would be at least daily posts. It has not been good news. And we have another 4 years with them. If this is how things are starting off...
The thing to get my attention today was the following article by Don Braid from the Calgary Herald:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Braid+Scapegoat+turn+tables+former+Alberta+employers/6719269/story.html
The former chief elections officer, Lorne Gibson, is not happy with the current government. The PCs this week, through Justice Minister Jonathan Denis, have said that it was Gibson's recommendations they were following when deciding to pass a law to keep proven illegal donations completely secret, in a way that sort of wiped their hands of the issue, like they had no part in it. One could argue that since he wanted to secretly investigate, it was only naturally assumed that the results would be kept secret. But I would have to disagree. Only a government used to being anti-transparent would assume such a thing. Whether he said it or not has nothing to do with the fact that we have a government that believes in keeping such things secret and would act accordingly. A person can make a recommendation; the government ought to have the sense to decide whether it's a truly good idea or not. How is this any different than a child misbehaving due to someone else's words (correctly understood or misunderstood), then, when caught, blaming the other person? There is a clear lack of integrity. And not on the former chief elections officer's part.
How can I, after having made my way through Social Studies 30-2 this past semester, looking at different ideologies and how governments have misused their power under various ideologies, not look at our provincial government and say, "Hey, there is something seriously wrong here!" Grade 12 students covering Social Studies 30-2 learn about some of the governments that like to keep secrets, especially secrets about illegal activities. Two that come to mind: the Soviet Union (especially under Stalin) and Nazi Germany. And here we see our provincial government following suit. You clearly don't need to have a totalitarian government to engage in unethical practices, to try to keep activities secret. But where does such secrecy lead? It should be a red flag to us all.
We have a political party that has been in power for over 40 years. Not one that has simply been in power, but one that has been pretty much unchallenged. That's a lot of time to practise behaving inappropriately--in secret. What other things have happened that we don't know about?
--
On another note, Lukaszuk is quoted in the article as saying,
"The line hasn't changed, the understanding has"This almost infuriates me. Parents, homeschooling parents and representatives from Christian schools and boards tried to get through to him about the Education Act he was trying to put through, telling him that the wording could be understood in a different way from what he said the government intended, and he ignored, ignored, ignored. Kept telling everybody that the government doesn't intend to change anything. Yet here he is, clearly capable of seeing how wording can be understood in more than one way. Can anybody say, "ARGH!"?
Comments
Post a Comment