The Speaker's ruling in the context of Mr. Angry's long term goals

There is no question that Speaker Milliken's ruling was a welcome defence of our democracy. Despite the weak objections put up by the usual CSPs (Conservative Sock Puppets). Especially this one. The Liberals as the mud slingers, Mr. Persichilli? Per favore.

But Mr. Angry likely sees some upside to this seeming Speaker smackdown. Throughout his reign, King-to-be Stephen I has sought to undermine our country's institutions. Whether it is flouting elections spending laws, choking off the supply of information, assuming the prerogatives of the Governor General, prorouging Parliament, ignoring his own election date laws and, probably most importantly, just plain running an incompetent government; he has found ways to give the impression that this country is unworkable.

The detainee document debacle is another opportunity to the Master of Disaster. Normally blinded by the weakness of his convictions, Andrew Coyne gets it right this time.

the Tories have achieved their initial objective: total strategic confusion

...

So if the prime minister is still invoking his “legal obligations,” it can only mean his position hasn’t changed a whit. When he speaks of the need to balance one obligation against another, it really means he intends to defy the Speaker and stonewall Parliament.

Under a run of the mill Prime Minister this might be another example of a desperate attempt to effect a cover-up of war crimes. Under a deranged neo-con determined to destroy the country from within, this could be just one more opportunity to make the government unworkable. If in the end, there is nothing that points convincingly to war crimes on the part of Canadian officials I won't be too surprised. I will, however, understand the reason his self-satisfied grin when that outcome becomes apparent.

Recommend this Post