Separating the good communists from the bad communists - Macleans.ca
 

Separating the good communists from the bad communists


 

She likely did not appreciate the response, but Elizabeth May did get the Prime Minister on his feet with this question at the very end of QP yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently said in Colombia that it was a matter of principle that Cuba should be excluded from the Summit of the Americas. As Communist China keeps buying up Canada, I am wondering where the principle is. While Cuba has a long way to go, it recently held an open mass where the Pope invited Cuban Catholics to worship. There is no such freedom of religion in China’s persecution of Tibetan monks, Falun Gong and Christians, which goes unimpeded.

I am asking the Prime Minister, as he hands the keys of Canada to China, what principle excludes Cuba?


 

Separating the good communists from the bad communists

  1. “principle” is a buzzword used to win elections, not something to be expected in governing

  2. This may have been the last meeting of the OAS. The other countries have excluded us in an entirely new group. Cuba, however, will be there.

  3. The continued venture into free trade with Chile and Columbia by Canada is an excellent signal to other members of the OAS that if they wish to prosper by dealing with global democracies then they must treat their own people with the simple respect of having elections every few years.

    • And 5+ years of Conservative governments in Canada are a signal that between those elections, the government can do whatever the hell it wants.

      • And in the two subsequent elections after their 2006 win the voters chose to award the Conservatives with increasing popular vote. Surely an evil government that you describe would not be rewarded with such popularity by the citizens.

        It should also be noted, in a sense of fairness, that the present Conservative government chose not to use public funds to finance their election campaigns, unlike the previous Liberals who chose to siphon public funds into Quebec to finance local campaigns.

        • So you’re saying that electoral success is proof of ethical behaviour. Hey, whatever gets you through the night, I guess.It worked for the Bush Republicans.

          Also: Aaaadscaaaaam!

          • No, I am saying that I will trust the decision of the citizens in an election concerning who should govern us, and not the outlandish opinion of a Liberal commenter defending his Party`s right to use public funds to finance their political campaigns.

          • test

          • If you REALLY trust the citizens, then I guess you’re on board with proportional representation rather than this mock democracy wherein we are governed by the party that gets the biggest minority support (and yes I was for PR even when the Liberals were in power; as much as I dislike them, this is not an anti-Tory stance)

          • @Franklin: None of which changes the fact that electoral success is not proof of good behaviour.

            If Stephen Harper strangled a hooker but managed to get re-elected, would you still give him a free pass?

        • Wow! That has to be one of the more bizarre claims out there relating to adscam.

          • During the Gomery Inquiry it was revealed that a number of known Liberal contributors and organizers in Quebec received payments from federal depts. for questionable activities, as well as brown bags of cash. These people then contributed to Liberal campaigns in the province.

            Is it so bizarre to believe that these contributions were triggered by the funds siphoned to them?

          • You can “believe ” what you want. I prefer to see some evidence myself, before i pass verdict.

        • You need to educate yourself on how political parties are financed:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada

          Not only did the Conservatives use public funds to finance their election campaigns, public funds comprised the majority of the money they spent.

          And lets not forget that by breaking the law the Conservatives swindled even more public money than they were lawfully entitled to.

          • And you need to understand the difference between political parties receiving public funds from a per vote subsidy, and political contributions from individuals, and the illegal activities that the members of the Liberal party were convicted off during the Chretien regime.

          • The “Chretien regime” is long over, but the Harper Regime continues down its crooked path. So far, they have only been convicted of defrauding Elections Canada (read: the taxpayer) with the In and Out scandal, but I strongly suspet there will be convictions coming out of the voter suppression racket as well.

            As to why they keep getting more of the popular vote… beats me. For the life of me I can’t see how anyone with half a brain would vote for these bozos, but apparently a significantly large minority of our population is missing one or more lobes…

          • The question to ask is not “why do they keep getting more of the popular vote” but “did they legitimately get more of the popular vote?”

          • Whatever the differences between per-vote subsidies, tax credits and election-spending reimbursements, one thing is for certain – they’re all public money and not only do they cromprise the majority of Conservatives funding, the Conservatives receive more than any other party.

        • You lie.

    • The only one not a democracy is Cuba. But then neither is China, and we’re quite happy to trade with them.

  4. “Cuba does not qualify because the leader is not democratically elected, and China does not qualify because it is not in the Americas.”

    ..How many super tankers does Castro have?….besides which Cuba doesn’t have tons of $ available for it to buy my[ our] oil.

  5. The only good communist is a dead communist.