Steve, the Sovereigntists, and the Scare Tactics

Well, Prime Minister Stephen Harper really done it now. He's continually ploughed through Parliament with his Napoleon complex turned up to maximum, running roughshod over the parties the other 62% of voters put in office, and insisting a minority is a mandate. And now that he has finally pushed them beyond their limits, they have united against him and promised that he will fail the upcoming confidence vote on Monday. Weren't expecting that, were ya Stevie? Apparently he thought he could rule like a spoiled child king without repercussion. He was wrong.

Rather than facing the music, however, he decided to take the most cowardly option imaginable: run to Governor General Michaëlle Jean and advise her to prorogue (temporarily suspend) Parliament, thus placing her in what a number of experts are calling an untenable position. One such expert is Errol Mendes, law professor at the University of Ottawa:

Mendes says Harper's request would put Jean in a jam, "drawing her into a potential abuse of executive authority," because his reason to suspend Parliament would be to avoid defeat of his minority Conservative government in a vote on Monday that he has already postponed once.

"She is now being faced with a really incredible, untenable situation by the prime minister, because, in effect, what he's trying to do is to hide from a vote of confidence and thereby essentially drawing her into a potential abuse of executive authority," Mendes said in an interview.

"I basically consider this, regardless of whether you think the coalition should or should not take place, a profound and gross abuse of power." (link)

Tradition dictates that she take his advice and prorogue Parliament, but the circumstances under which this request is being made are outrageous. And should she deny his request, she will be placed in the equally difficult position of either calling another election days after we just had one, or the controversial move of installing the Coalition leader as PM without a vote. What answer can she possibly give that won't roil the waters even more?

Harper may be (just barely) within legal limits to do what he is doing, but ethically it's despicable.

As if all this isn't enough, he has employed the U.S. Republicans' tried-and-true tactic of sounding the alarm bells while deliberately misinforming the public (also known as "lying") about the workings of the parliamentary system, utilizing already existent ignorance about this process to exacerbate the confusion in the hopes of increasing support for the Conservatives. The Republicans have shown this method to work time and time again. Who better to emulate when you want to pull a snow job on the Canadian people? If you don't mind stooping to filthy games and embarrassing your country amid a worldwide economic crisis, by golly this is the way to go.

(All quotations below: emphasis mine)

Scare tactic lie #1: The Coalition is a coup d'état.
Implied: This is a political crisis! This is unconstitutional and undemocratic! It smacks of violent takeovers in developing countries!

Example set 1 (link):

"We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power," Harper said.
...

"We're realizing that no matter what we had come out with in the economic statement, their game plan was set. It's a kind of coup d'etat," Blackburn said. (National Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn)

Example set 2 (link):

Bewildered Calgary Tory MPs girded Monday for the distinct possibility their party could be relegated back into opposition within days, and lamented how a newly elected government could fall victim to an unprecedented "coup."

"The biggest loser here is the Canadian public," Obhrai fumed. "It's like a coup." (Deepak Obhrai, Calgary East Conservative MP)

"The sabotage was in effect," Anders said. "Trying to pull a coup d'etat, in a sense, I don't think will bode well for them." (Calgary West Tory MP Rob Anders)

The Cons have employed the coup d'état term again and again, using everything that term implies in an attempt to elicit fear by simultaneously associating this with unconstitutionality and violent government takeovers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is this constitutional and in keeping with the Westminster System, it's been done before on both federal and provincial levels. Moreover, they tried to do it themselves in 2000 and 2004! This is not a "crisis" and for the most part the only ones getting "up in arms" about it are the Conservatives, who up until now thought they were entitled to ignore the wishes of 62% of the population.

Scare tactic lie #2: We need to go over the heads of the MP's and GG and take this to the people.
Implied: Forget all that confidence vote stuff! Forget the GG! That's all undemocratic stuff! The way it works is we have the people vote on it!

"I think what we want to do is basically take a time out and go over the heads of the members of Parliament, go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people," said Transport Minister John Baird. (link)

Um, no. There is a due process for the Westminster System and you are not following it. Being the ruling party does not mean you get to rewrite the system to suit your wishes. And those MP's whose heads you want to go over, are legitimate representatives for 62% of the voting population who voted against you.

Scare tactic lie #3: This is a separatist coalition. It's sedition!
Implied: The separatists will have veto power over the government! Those scoundrels will be running the country! They're going to break up Canada! We'll be powerless to stop them!

Example 1 (link):

"The message is that Canadians do not want to see a separatist coalition. It's a plain and simple message," said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day. "The coalition does not have the confidence of Canadians. Never in our history has anybody entertained the thought of a coalition that would be controlled by separatists."

Example 2 (link):

In Ottawa, Environment Minister Jim Prentice described Monday's events as a "serious situation" that could see separatists holding a veto card over the rest of the country, while Calgary West Tory MP Rob Anders argued the opposition parties were determined to bring down the government.

Example 3 (link):

The Conservatives turned up the rhetoric Wednesday, going so far as to talk of treason.

Ontario MP Bob Dechert accused the Liberals of trying to destroy the country by aligning with the separatist Bloc.

"They're getting into bed with the separatists," he said. "They've actually written a deal giving the separatists a veto over every decision of the Canadian government. That is as close to treason and sedition as I can imagine."

Example 4: Pretty much this entire article, liberally sprinkled with similar expressions - a few quick snippets:

Sedition Coalition... quick and dirty coup d'etat... ugly alliance with a separatist party who are salivating at the thought... coalition of sedition...

Another falsehood repeated ad nauseam. The Cons allege that the Bloc Québécois would have "veto power" over the coalition government, and therefore amounts to the sovereigntists running the country. That's just ridiculous. Any minority government has to work with other parties to the extent that it maintains enough support to pass a confidence vote (a concept which Harper obviously fails to understand). Thus, in effect, any opposing party(ies) with enough MP's to tip the scale has "veto power," on an ongoing basis. This agreement doesn't give the Bloc any power it doesn't already have. As a matter of fact, they have signed away their existing "veto power" for 18 months. They are not part of the coalition and have surrendered this power in the interest of stability of the coalition government.

Also disturbing about scare tactic #3 is the inflammatory divisiveness being perpetuated by the Cons in their ongoing demonizing of the sovereigntists. Literal demonizing... they describe the coalition as "a deal with the devil." The last thing we need in this country is more antagonism between its various regions. It's worth noting that these are the same Cons who were so recently courting the sovereigntists hard, calling Québec a "nation within a nation" and pulling out all the stops for the sovereigntist vote. Once it became apparent that the level of support they sought wasn't going to materialize, they were quick to throw them under the bus. That kind of duplicity should tell you something about their Machiavellian approach to getting what they want.

Even more hypocritical: The Cons insist that they have never and would never sign a deal like this one with the Bloc, whom they say want to destroy the country. Yet the Canadian Alliance and PC parties, who later merged to become the Conservative party, secretly tried to form a coalition government with the Bloc in 2000. In that one, the The Globe and Mail has documents to prove it and Bloc officials confirm it to be true. According to one Bloc official, this even included discussions on making it easier for Québec to separate by referendum in the future. The Cons deny it all, of course. Then in 2004 while in opposition, Harper (who back then apparently did understand the concept of minority governments) asked the GG to put him in power if the newly elected Liberal government was defeated in the Commons, saying, “We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation." (emphasis mine) The situation in 2004 was a mirror image of the one today, but apparently it's only okay when the Conservatives do it.

When it suits their needs, the Cons have no qualms about forming coalition governments or making agreements with the sovereigntists... but they've proven they're willing to go to any lengths to prevent anyone else from doing so. Including lying through their teeth at every turn.

This group so desperately needs to get thrown out on their collective ear. They have repeatedly demonstrated their contempt for the democratic process, the parliamentary system, and the Canadian people. I know by convention the GG will probably have to grant Harper's request, but I'm hoping against hope she says no and he has to face the confidence vote like a big boy.