Showing posts with label Andrew Coyne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Coyne. Show all posts

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Andrew Coyne's Leap of Faith?

Martin government to fall: Coalition Version 2004?
Andrew Coyne is trying to convince us, Stephen Harper leader of official opposition was in a similar arrangement  after a tweet summit with staff in Gilles Duceppe office. Andrew also asks us to take the word from David McGuinty that the Liberals won't re-enter in the coalition agreement that does not expire until 2011. Mr.  Coyne, for the sake of clarity, I suggest you arrange a video interview with the 2004 conspirators Gilles, Layton to answer a few basic questions. They can provide proof the letter sent to the GG in 2004 was similar.
In 2008 every MP in the proposed Lib-NDP coalition government was REQUIRED to sign onto the terms contained in the coalition accord and Ignatieff as deputy leader signed it last.  There was no effort by any leader in their party to have their MPs endorse the letter sent to the GG on the "alleged" coalition of the opposition parties in 2004.

Does this mean in 2004 Layton, Duceppe felt their MPs signatures were not necessary?
It might only be me but the Jean Chretien explanation of proof leaves me with several unanswered questions. I was able to find a picture of Harper, Duceppe, Layton next to each others cooperating for a photo op. Bonus:BBQ Martin to get grilled?

Can I expect our media provide actual proof before drawing conclusions or is creating controversy for your publication sufficient?
  • Telephone conversations from senior staff
  • Briefing notes draft letter about make up of coalition government
  • MPs signing off from each party
  • Mechanism for dispute resolution by this arrangement in 2004
  • Power sharing agreement to avoid a no confidence vote, a termination date, renewal clause
Disclaimer:
Is it possible Conservatives did enter or negotiate with the Bloc or NDP into setting up a coalition accord similar? Yes, but before I can be convinced Stephen Harper did agree to a coalition with the Bloc and NDP I need proof. Waving that signed letter sent to the GG by Gilles or Jack for the next 36 days does not meet my standard of proof.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Andrew Coyne our own Kurt Westergaard?

Anyone remember the reaction to the Danish artist Kurt Westergaard in 2006? It took four years to remind Europeans and the world about the importance of a free society. Are those upset about their festival or cultural icon repeating the same mistake? Will politicians show courage and defend our Freedom to offend or allow public pressure and threats suspend their principles again?
Not my Canada, property destroying thugs
Do we live in a free society and the freedom of expression is not only protected but encouraged? Are we so afraid of criticism that we bow down to the pressure of political correctness?
No, thanks this is not my Canada.
This is my Canada
Andrew and Macleans should be applauded for doing his job, even though I don't agree with many of his opinions. In his article What lies beneath Quebec's scandals.
Freedom of Expression Western Standard?
It is a very interesting time in Quebec. A sitting Premier is testifying about allegations of influence peddling of appointments in the judiciary from on behalf of the Liberal Party from a former high ranking Liberal.
Mr. Bellemare testified before the commission of inquiry into the nomination process of judges that he first warned Mr. Charest of the influence peddling by party fundraiser Franco Fava, a construction entrepreneur, during a one-on-one meeting on Sept. 2, 2003. Mr. Bellemare said he complained about efforts made to get Marc Bisson appointed to the Quebec Court and judge Michel Simard promoted to associate chief justice.

Testimony at Gomery Inquiry
Mismanagement of the Sponsorship Program
  • There was insufficient oversight at the very senior levels of the public service, which allowed managers of the Sponsorship Program to circumvent proper contracting procedures and reporting lines;
  • There existed a veil of secrecy surrounding the administration of the Sponsorship Program and an absence of transparency in the contracting process; and
  • There was a lack of clear objectives, criteria, and guidelines for the Sponsorship Program, which resulted in the sponsorships being used for purposes other than national unity or federal visibility.


A loss of nearly $39.8 Billion in the Quebec Pension Fund, nearly 25% of its total value covering over 500,000 workers did not warrant this much backlash, but a magazine cover and a few articles does?
Apparently Andrew Coyne's decision to flash a spotlight on the problem with money in Quebec politics is causing an interesting spectacle.
Was his prediction to the criticism, predictable? You betcha!
A number of  people have a vested interest in keeping the gravy train moving. A similar outrage by the media opposed to Rob Ford for Mayor has taken place.
..constructive criticism in Quebec, given the francophone majority’s perception of itself as an embattled minority, all too often leads to a closing of the ranks against what is invariably described as “Quebec-bashing.” If from outside, it is put down to ignorance of Quebec’s particularity; if from a non-francophone Quebecer, a failure to identify with the goals and values of the majority; if from a francophone, a traitorous readiness to advance on the backs of his fellows.
If you read the comments critical of the story, they in most cases ignore the evidence of the facts introduced in the story by its author. They in fact launch into an ad hominem attack against the author and his publication.
I'm a native french speaker from Quebec and I have to say that no article with such an adequate understanding of the situation would ever be written in a Quebec media in 200 years.

Quebec's socioeconomic portrait is a bunch of special interest groups fighting for the government treasury, which is understandably the greatest province resource given the taxation level, the heavy involvement of the state, and incredibly high public debt. Anybody who doesn't see that is schizophrenic. And, unfortunately it's pretty much everybody. So how about your next front-page being Bonhomme in a straitjacket.   - Stephane (one of the hundreds of people who stopped and invested their time to write a response on the Macleans blog.)
  1. Allege author and magazine is bashing unfairly (check)
  2. Threats of lawsuit for publishing article  or use of cultural icon (check)
  3. Federal Political Parties are to blame (check)
  4. If you agree with the article, live in Quebec you do not qualify as a Quebecer.  (check)
  5. If you are not born in Quebec, or don't speak Quebec French you are not allowed to criticize on Quebec matters. (check)
This is time to check if we hold true to our principles. Do we support the right for Macleans to be offensive or do we bow down to political correctness?
Enhanced by Zemanta