The dissenting Ms. May

A day after denying unanimous consent to move along a crime bill, Elizabeth May becomes the lone dissenting vote on the motion to extend Canada’s involvement in the Libya mission.

In my case, on behalf of the Green Party and my constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, I must say no, but I see we have a role as peacekeepers. I believe passionately that we return to our role as peacekeepers as a nation that is so well known around the world for peacekeeping. We have a role within NATO to be the nation that stands and says, enough of the aerial bombardment, now is the time to send in the diplomats. Let us work with colleagues who have some chance of reaching the illegitimate government of Mr. Gadhafi. Let us work with colleagues in the African Union, the Arab League and the United Nations, and be the country that says we do not continue to give a blank cheque to a mission that has no exit strategy.




Browse

The dissenting Ms. May

  1. Well at least somebody finally said it.

    She’s off to a good start.

  2. We didn’t hear much from experts on May’s role in Parliament. All we heard was seating plan, number of questions she would get, office space and other rather condescending put downs  following the election. 
    How much power does the ”unanimous consent” rule convey? You seem to hear the phrase  a lot during everyday proceedings.

  3. I believe passionately that we return to our role as peacekeepers as a nation that is so well known around the world for peacekeeping.as a nation that is so well known around the world for peacekeeping.

    I only used to suspect Ms. May’s views were outdated, now it is in Hansard.

    • Peacekeeping is not outdated….in fact it’s the coming thing. And we were there first.

      • Poor Emily; living in the past in everything she does.

        • LOL I believe your love of war, and ambition to fight them, is the past dude.

          Even the constantly warring Americans have discovered that what they need is peacekeeping….and they don’t have the training to do it.

          • I know peacekeeping sounds fuzzy and nice, but really, one should look beyond things that sound fuzzy and nice to make sure they really are fuzzy and nice in reality.  Question the assumptions of peacekeeping for just an instant and it very quickly becomes clear that its insane.  You like the facile tactic of accusing your opponents of loving war, but the truth is that our opposition to peacekeeping, or rather its glorification as the only valid role for a military, is based on the very same disgust for war and suffering.

            As an aside, the notion that disgust for war and suffering is somehow a sophisticated position is a prime example of the infantile nihilism which infects the left.

            Back to peacekeeping: im not saying there is no situation in which it could be useful, but most of the time it just perpetuates conflicts indefinitely.  It helps the losing side regroup and re-arm.  In the worst of cases it has led to our soldiers having a front row seat to a full blown genocide.

            The real solution to wars everywhere is the same solution which led to peace in Europe – the establishment of democratic governments, the opening of markets, and the development of 3d world economies.

          • Peacekeeping doesn’t sound at all ‘fuzzy and nice’. 121 Canadian peacekeepers have been killed in action.

            The ‘assumption’ of peacekeeping is to….keep the peace.

            That is a very sane thing to do.

            I can see you’re not a christian….peace is the basis of it. Jesus mentioned it a lot.

            Especially in ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God’

            ‘infantile nihilism’? Jesus? Srsly?

            Democratic govts war on each other….democracy is no guarantor of anything.  But while we’re waiting on markets and 3rd world development….we need peacekeepers.

    • This may come as a surprise, but some of us don’t support the fact we as a nation are now fully engaged  in two wars. 
      We don’t all support the militarization of Canada, its belligerent, jingoistic, flag waving, pro aggression, foreign policy.
      And we don’t support wasting lives and money on warships, cold war fighter planes, and armies of youth who die, while our leaders get to dress up in phony uniforms and pose in the cockpits of useless aircraft, acting out comic book fantasies.
       

    • It would seem Ms. Depape has her first disciple

    • Ms. May will continue to pander to the Canadians who are still living in the 50′s. She’ll get attention from those in the media who grew up in the 50′s, and her parties share of the national vote will probably continue to decline from 6% to 3% and so on. Whatever, she’s completely irrelevant.

      • Funny, the Republican presidential candidates think the Libyan war is total folly.  They see it as  a sign of Obama’s confused foreign policy and see no strategic interest in the US involvement in what is a European concern. 

        • I knew Ms. May was an American, I was unaware that she was a Republican however. Nor would I have pegged you for a Republican, but I guess you learn something new every day.

          • She is Canadian, she was born in the US.  Tony Clement is a Canadian as well, despite being born in Britain. The point is, there is no clear left/right position on Libya.  I suspect Harper’s motivation is more likely seeing an opportunity to justify the F 35 purchase, rather than his desire for nation building in North Africa.

          • Yes, because Harper’s sole motivation for everything he does is the perpetuation of Pure Evil.

      • Harper panders to Canadians still living in the 50s.  This is stuff from the late 60s and early 70s.  Get your past decades right.

      • Omen, you warmongering pr**k.  If you have had any personal combat experience at all and you can still talk like you do, you are very likely psychopathic, if you have not experienced combat, you are just a pathetic wannabe juvenile pretend warrior who never grew up.  Bang Bang, I got you!  It is not a game.  In a previous post I named over fifty of those young Canadian men and women or the 160 who were killed in Afghanistan and you managed to belittle them and their memory by calling them “names”.

        The first 4 on the list were the first 4 killed in Afghanistan in the Tarnak Farm incidentSgt Marc D. Leger, Age: 29, from Lancaster, Ontario.Cpl Ainsworth Dyer, Age: 24, Montreal, Quebec.Pte Richard Green, Age: 21, Mill Cove, Nova Scotia.Pte Nathan Lloyd Smith, Age: 27, Porters Lake, Nova Scotia.by a hot shot American F16 fighter pilot, Major Harry Schmidt, who droped a laser guided bomb on them.  He wounded another 8 CanadiansSgt Lorne Ford, Age: 33, Brampton, Ontario
        Cpl René Paquette, Age: 33, Winnipeg, Manitoba
        Cpl Brett Perry, Age: 26, Winnipeg, Manitoba
        Pte Norman Link, Age: 24, Grande Prairie, Alberta
        Cpl Brian Decaire, Age: 25, Winnipeg, Manitoba
        MCpl Curtis Hollister, Age: 29, Cupar, Saskatchewan
        MCpl Stan Clark, Age: 35, Vancouver, British Columbia
        Cpl. Shane Brennanm, Age: 28, Collingwood, Ontarioand you should do some research on the eventual fate of the families effected and of the wounded men before you mouth off like you were a real man.I grieve the loss of every solder wasted in other peoples fights while you, unaffected by their loss, want more to die.Does it not occur to you that the 50s were the 50s because so many of us had already seen the stupidity of sending our family members to die, and that was very likely a “just” war?  Afghanistan and Libya are not. 

  4. Trust you, Mr Wherry, to give this silly MP a little, and unwarranted, publicity. I really thought you might have found somebody with some substance to quote.  But no, not you. Bah, humbug, (to coin a phrase).

    • Feel free to post a substantive quote from, a Conservative MP. 

    • To be fair, I think anytime a vote in Parliament is opposed by only one person that is newsworthy. Lone opposition to an otherwise unanimous decision is news worthy. 

  5. Not that she’ll get the hint, but when not even the NDP is voting the same, that tends to suggest something about the sheer depths of her fringy-left general lunacy.

  6. Wow, considering May is only one person, Cons sure are worried about her. LOL

    • Dissenting women always freak them out.  They prefer the head nodders.

      • They prefer Bobblehead Babes.

    • So you’d prefer a condescending pat on the head?  Or that she be ignored? 

      If Liz May wants to be taken seriously, then she has to expect that her pronouncements in Parliament will be given critical scrutiny.  Why the hell should Liz May be given some sort of free pass, where she can bloviate at will without being subject to criticism.  It seems to me that Emily and Jan are the anti-feminists here, they want women in Parliament to be able to be exempt from scrutiny and criticism.  Unbelievably lame.

      • Why are Cons concerned about her at all?  Cons have a majority.

        So she said something….it’s legal you know.

        Get a grip on yourself.

        • Yes, she said something, and she has every right to do so.  And we have every right to comment and criticize.  Your the one who needs to get a grip.

          And btw, not everybody who criticizes Liz May is a “Con”.  Lots of Liberals, Dippers and others are highly critical of her as well.  You remind me of Nixon and Senator McCarthy in the early 50s – you throw this “Con” label around at anyone you disagree with, the way Nixon and McCarthy used to label people “Commies” or “Reds”.

          • LOL sure ya do….except you guys really go overboard.

            One woman, one comment, how dare she disagree with you eh?

            Next up, you’ll be calling her a traitor.

            Again, get a grip.

          • So if any male disagrees with anything Elizabeth May says, he’s sexist?

          • @OrsonBean:disqus 
            Go take a cold shower, Bean

            You never know when to quit being stupid.

  7. I’m not so sure about Ms May’s comments either. Times change. Is it really possible to be a peacekeeper without first being a peacemaker? Presumably in most of our former peacemaking efforts the combatents were already separated or a ceasefire in effect – hence the value of peacekeeping. But haven’t we moved on? The public[ at least in the western world] no longer seems content to just pick up the pieces afterwards; or deal with the consequences of an unjust peace. Nowadays they demand we intervene to the degree we can, and hopefully on the side of the good guys. Having said all that, if her concern is primarily with arial bombardment, i have some sympathy. It seems to me anyway, to be a grotesquely blunt instrument attempting to be a surgical one. Perhaps i’m wrong. [ i'm no military expert] Perhaps it offers the least of all possible evils and delivers its roundhouse blows on the least of the innocent and to the most of the guilty?[ at least in this case] But if her worry is that it becomes a politically lazy and expedient substitute for the hard slogging of diplomacy, then i think she has a point

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/canada-went-into-libya-with-lofty-ideals-and-little-knowledge/article2060411/

    If Simpson is right, then May has a point. [ if that's what she is saying?] that military action is fine, if it’s accompanied with a full court press of knowledgeable and savvy diplomacy…someone please please assure me this is happening.

    • What May was talking about was directly along the lines of what Simpson writes. We have allowed the desperate need to provoke us into action without considering if that action will really help, what it might cost, what it might accomplish. Simply for the satisfaction of doing SOMETHING. This is rarely a wise path. 

      Having already become involved, there is no reason we must continue down this path – it’s not too late to reconsider, to restructure the mission or re-cast our involvement – or even remove ourselves. 

      • I wonder when if ever real consideration of the consequences of our actions supercedes to any meaningful degree politics? That said, just what does May consider to be a viable alternative policy in Libya? Something had to be done. Simply standing by and wringing our hands is not an option nowadays.

  8. The idea that NATO, UN, EU or US, can proclaim themselves the masters of the world should be eradicated and criminalized forever. Gadhafi’s regime was legitimate (in their eyes) until they decided to scheme against him. They must realize that they cannot rightly tell the leaders of other countries to simply leave the direction of their country. There is a problem here. Yes, Gadhafi will leave and then the Libyans who stand with him, will be criminalized and declared by both the rebels and the West as terrorists (just to facilitate the occupation of that country). If Gadhafi must leave, he and Libyans must decide that matter, and someone neutral must take power in view to avoid continual bloodshed and acts of revenge from both side. NATO is the problem, not Gadhafi who is defending his country against an elaborated invasion and an attempt to take over the country’s oil reserve. In their philosophy of a NEW WORLD ORDER, they will allow no country to maintain national identity and financial liberty (key to sovereignty). Divide the Arabs and then conquer them is what the controllers have planned. Lest the world wake up, there will be blood and a lot of blood.

  9. I guess the exit strategy has been revealed today!

  10. Peacekeeping is for police and diplomats.  Soldiers are for war and are explicitly trained for killing.

Sign in to comment.