I'm not sure exactly what constitutes treasonous behaviour but I'm taking a course called "Diplomacy" and while I was doing the first readings last night I started thinking about supreme interests. You see, the supreme interest of a nation is its survival as a sovereign state. To be sovereign means that a state is able to act in its own interests both internationally and domestically.
So, I began to wonder if various prime ministers we have had over the last 20 or 30 years have compromised the integrity of Canada to the point that our continued existence as a *sovereign* state is jeopardized. Did Brian Mulroney compromise this ability with the signing of NAFTA and the inclusion of the proportionality clause that dooms us to be forever beholden to American needs instead of our own? I'm sure that Chretien and Martin furthered the process while in power, but not particular instance pops to mind. Certainly signing on to the Kyoto protocol and then doing nothing for several years was against our national interest and severely damaged our international reputation - the consequences of which are still to be seen.
But my mind drifted most to Harper and his affection for big business and especially big oil. I know that he loves Alberta - but does he love Canada? I'm sure his answer would be yes but how is that demonstrated? Does encouraging deep integration with the US and the actions of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives show a love of Canada? To me it is betraying our supreme interests, it threatens our very survival as a sovereign state. I think that that is treason.
Am I in so much trouble?
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Okay, one more Harper rant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Treason: Random house dictionary
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
(Harper is certianly working to diminish/weaken Canada but is not trying to overthrow himself or off the queen)
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
( we would have to analyse the oath he swore upon taking office, before we could judge this)
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
( I think we could argue that diminishing Canada, watering down soveriegnty and entering into agreements without Parliaments approval could well be breach of faith but you would have to prove in court that taking part in SPP or other decisions had in fact damaged Canada and of course experts would blur things so much no guilty would verdict would be given.
Also I would think there is probably some form of immunity from such cases in his position.
That said I personaly believe he is a moraly reprehensible treasonist bastard who is selling us out. What I can't understand is what makes this seem like a logical or good outcome for Canada in his mind(or Martin's, or Mulroney's). Is there some personal gain we don't know about or does he honestly believe the U.S. is so superior they should dominate us?
Of course Harpers U.S. role model has had a long line of treasonist leaders. The Federal reserve act was anti constiution, as was the income tax act, several of the coinage acts, as was coopting many State rights, going to war without a vote, illegal phone taps, illegal prisions etc etc etc.
It's on topics like this I can almost understand Libertarians.
As for motive, I believe that in any situation, no matter how dire for the majority - there will be those who benefit and become enriched. I am sure that deeper integration with the US will make a lot of people much richer - just not the 80% of us who aren't rich already.
Or, perhaps they see it as inevitable.
Post a Comment