By Stephen J. Gray
“Members of Parliament will vote as early as next Tuesday on a motion to hold a national referendum on abolishing the Senate.” National Post November 7, 2007.
The people of Canada were denied a referendum on the falsehood called “same-sex marriage.” Yet these politicians of all political stripes have no problem getting interested very quickly in holding a “referendum” when it suits their political agendas. Are these politicians political hypocrites masquerading as defenders of the public interest?
"What is clear is that it makes no sense to have a parliamentary body that is totally unaccountable to the public."
“Marjory LeBreton, the Leader of the Government in the Senate” quoted in National Post of November 7, 2007.
Oh really, one wonders where was Ms. LeBreton’s concern for the “public” when so-called “same-sex marriage,” an issue that was never in the Charter, was foisted upon the “public” without a referendum? Many people might argue that we have a “ totally unaccountable” parliament. Perhaps we should also have a referendum on whether to abolish parliament as we know it today.
A Liberal MP, Mark Holland, had this to say in the National Post article, on a referendum on the Senate, "Personally I am amenable to it. It might be a good way for all of the Canadian public to express an opinion. It's something I don't have a problem with.” Gee, thank you Mr. Holland, we sure are glad, you “don't have a problem with” a referendum on the Senate. Of course the “Canadian public” were not allowed a referendum “to express an opinion” on the big lie of “same-sex marriage” because many of the politicians were not “amenable.”
Still, PM Harper according to the National Post of November 7, 2007 is "favourably disposed" to having a referendum on the Senate. And in a Canadian Press report of November 7, 2007, Mr. Harper is quoted as saying, "there's never any harm" in consulting Canadians. Oh, thank you, Mr. Harper we are so glad that you are “favourably disposed" to having a referendum on the Senate. To bad you were not “favourably disposed" to consulting Canadians on having a referendum on “same-sex marriage.” That piece of nonsense was never in the Charter and you politicians knew or should have known that.
But hey, the politicians decide what is “good” for the people and the people are prisoners of the political will. We call this democracy, though some might call it political hypocrisy at work. Which makes one wonder, is this working to abolish the Senate a smokescreen or a diversion to make politicians look good? An MP had this to say:
“Geoff Regan, a Nova Scotia MP, said a second chamber is needed to ‘restrain the power of the Prime Minister.’” He went on to say, “Whether the Senate is reformed or amended, it can only be done through a constitutional amendment process. Canada has more pressing priorities. The government and the NDP are trying to deflect attention from bigger issues by attacking the Senate.” (National Post November 7, 2007.)
There are all kinds of opinions on the Senate and it would take a “constitutional amendment” to change it. I believe, one of the “bigger issues” affecting this country was so-called “same-sex marriage.” This perversion of words was never in the Charter, yet it was imposed by an irrational parliament. My question is this: If we can have a proposed referendum on the Senate: Why were the people denied a referendum on this colossal lie called “same-sex marriage?”
Stephen J. Gray
November 7, 2007.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca website: http://www.oocities.org/graysinfo