Canadian prime minister Harper gets the Hitler/Untergang remix treatment
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper avoided being kicked out by the elected representatives of the majority of Canadians -- he asked the Governor General to let him shut down Parliament for two months. So it was inevitable that someone would violate Godwin's law and post a Stephen Harper/Hitler remix of "Downfall (Der Untergang)" -- the infamous, infinitely remixable clip that's been used to parody every subject under the sun.
The Harper Dictatorship (via Mighty God King
the latest
latest episodes
Wouldn't "violating" Godwin's law require not making a Nazi analogy?
I'm the big bad separatist from Montreal, yup yup, it's me!
ahhhh! pure, pure win of the winningest win!
Holy crap this is the highlight of my day!! Thanks Cory!
Holy crap this is the highlight of my day!! Thanks Cory!
Really? Harper?
Doesn't this make more sense if it was Jack Layton?
Bang on for Harper. Layton? Hardly...
Spoken like a true socialist.
sludge.. how appropriate.
Personal attacks seems to be the order for the NDP.
the steam hose no more assaults the wyvern manure than the spring rains offend the duck dung.
So Harper called on the power of the monarchy to suspend parliament? Can they do it again when the current suspension ends? Doesn't this mean there is no longer democracy in Canada?
Can the Queen suspend the British parliament? Or does this just apply to the colonies?
Listen - I'm not behind the conservatives as much as I'm against the coalition.
I only wish as Canadians we could exhibit this much passion AT THE POLLS.
Canada is at least seven nations, eight if you count those it was stolen from. How can they agree?
I agree (Ha!). Canadian politics is increasingly regional. Each election makes the provincial divides more evident. I'm getting more and more cynical toward the entire process. Separation ironically seems to be the uniting factor, be it east or west.
They used the wrong Anthony Hopkins move for this. Stephen Harper is more of a fava beans and chianti type. The mask would look great on him, too.
Anthony Hopkins? In 'Der Untergang'? I think not. Like many coalition arguments, it takes a leap of faith to make sense.
As #1 points out - that's not a violation of Godwin's Law. It is almost exactly what the law predicts.
The Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
That clip is really annoying if you happen to speak german.
Holy hell, that video made my day. That is too good time a bazillion.
Geez, maybe that's what was taking him so long in Rideau Hall yesterday - he was threatening to make Canada a republic.
read "invoked" for "violated"
That's Bruno Ganz, isn't it? I have a hard time seeing the name of that movie and not conflating it with Howard Waldrop's "Der Untergang des Abendlandesmenschen"
If I'm going to invoke Waldrop, I should appropriately invoke Waldrop on alternate Hitlers.
That was funny. But "Justin Trudeau won't let him touch the constitution"? The Liberals are going to foist great expectations on that poor kid, and he can't possibly live up to them.
The uniform suits Harper.
Harper is the first Prime Minister in Canada who has decided that the economy is more important than following the constitution.
And because it is so important, he has decided to take a 6 week vacation.
Bottom line - closing the House to avoid a non-confidence vote is a petty maneuver this time to save his hide. What happens next time (now that there's a precedent) when he or the next guy wants to start a war or suspend civil liberties and a majority of the elected representatives in the House oppose him?
Why, just suspend the House. So long, democracy.
I'm not so much for the Conservatives as I am against bailing out the Auto and Forestry sector. As I seem to recall, one of the Coalition's main plans is to do just that, and it's such a bad idea that I'm going to vote Conservative when there's an election early next year.
Layton gets to work by CYCLING!
Heee.
just for the record not all of alberta voted for the pizza pedo party aka the conservatives.....
Yeeeeeah.
Arresting Dion, Layton and Ducceppe and having the RCMP raid the Liberal offices, while the armed forces crack down on Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. That is breaking down democracy.
Using Parliamentary procedure to get an extension is political shenanigans but not the breakdown of the democracy. Let us not forget that come January Parliament will be in session and the budget will have to be presented (and voted on).
And let us not forget that Harper got the majority of the minority. Across Canada more people support him and his policies than anyone else. Presumably they would rather he would remain in power rather than anyone else. Do their voices get discounted?
While I agree that using the Governor General to prorogue parliament to avoid a vote of confidence is not the burning of the Reichstag, it is nevertheless unprecedented and deeply shady.
Conversely, defeating a minority government and forming a coalition (while a risky, and I think ultimately unsustainable strategy) has ample precedent. Furthermore, it would represent the majority of seated members in the House, and by extension the majority of Canadians. Calling the leaders of the opposition parties "undemocratic" and implying that they are plotting a coup is highly questionable behavior within a parliamentary system based on the Westminster tradition.
"pizza pedo party"?
What a completely ignorant thing to say. It's better used amongst the horribly childish YouTube comments than in a constructive conversation.
I'm sick with this whole mess and think ALL of the leaders should get a kick in the pants. There's certainly enough people within each of their own parties willing to do so.
Boba Fett: While I generally agree with what you're saying, I don't see how a coalition is representative of the majority of Canadians. A coalition majority would consist of three separate parties, each with substantially less votes than the current minority government.
Although it would then combine to be a majority, it's hardly representative of the Canadians who voted for the individual parties.
It strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for anyone to support a coalition who, just weeks ago,
was against the ideology of two-thirds of the participating parties.
And one of those participating parties are separatists? Talk about a deal with the devil. I could never in good conscience vote for a party who's mandate is centered around the dismantling of our country.
As I said, the strategy of forming a coalition would likely be unsustainable in the long run, although not as much as it would have been had the conservatives formed a coalition with the Bloc during their first minority. Nevertheless, should the Liberals, NDP and Bloc form a coalition, they would, for all intents and purposes, constitute a single party with a single caucus. This would represent a majority of Canadians, regardless of the ideological differences between the constituent parts. God knows, there are certainly ideological differences within each of the above parties as they now stand, and yet they somehow manage.
If the Liberals can manage to reconcile their interests with those of the Bloc and the NDP, at least until they can appoint a new leader and call an election, more power to them. It's Harper who's trying to change the rules of the game.
ww, sdge y r rl tl - d y nt cmprhnd th smplst f mth? ths wll hlp y:
I DON'T UNDERSTAND PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY AND I'M OUTRAGED!!!
We don't know anything about Parliamentary Democracy, but we know that Stephen Harper won the election to be Prime Minister, and that means that if anyone else is prime minister, that's undemocratic.
Here's a good example - Imagine if it's your birthday party, and you want to order pizza. You and 36% of the invitees want pepperoni (Conservative). But 10% want bacon (Bloc), 17% want pineapple (NDP) and 30% want ham(Libs). So pepperoni wins right?
No! The other people at the party decide they would rather have bacon, pinapple and ham pizza. So they team up against you and they ruin your birthday.
Even worse, the bacon people want to burn down your house, and the pineapple people want to make you share your presents.
That's not fair, that's not democracy.
This is clearly an attempt to subvert democracy, by allowing the majority of Parliament to overthrow the Government. Parliament should not have the right to tell the Government what to do. Who elected them anyway? Separatists and Socialists, that's who!
There is absolutely no precedent for a minority government to be replaced by a coalition government, or at least, I can't remember one, and I'm almost twenty nine years old. And I don't have to look in a history book to tell you it's UNDEMOCRATIC!!!
For the Liberals and the NDP and The Bloc to team up, against the Conservatives, they should get together as a party called the New Liberal Bloc, and win an election. THOSE ARE THE RULES
to repeat to sludge:
is 7 not greater than 3 (even if 7 is composed of 3+2+2)?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Clockwork: What the hell is with the name calling and condescension?
I understand the math, thanks. At risk of winding you up even further, I don't understand the tone of your post. Is the it all toungue-in-cheek or do you also believe this whole thing stinks? I'm not arguing the numbers and your nice little analogies. I think we're on the same page. I'm trying to convey my frustration of potentially having a government who's mandate I don't agree with and would never vote for. In fact, at this point, I'd welcome another election (yeesh!). If the people voted for a new party formed from Liberals, NDP, & Bloc, then fine. That's democracy. I can live with that easier than the attempted power grab.
Because that's what it is. This has nothing to do with the good of the nation. Duceppe goes on national television saying he's along for the ride to try and further the cause of Quebec sovereignty. Layton and Dion don't seem to care. Layton seems to think he can fix this overnight by throwing $30 billion (just for starting) at the economy. Yeah, let's spend our way out of debt. Anyone care for a repeat of the 70s where we ran a deficit year after year?
This whole thing isn't even as much about the economy as it's about Harper's dictatorial attempt to eradicate the other parties by eliminating public funding. Right after the previous election, Layton approached Duceppe about forming a coalition. Dion was easy to talk into it as he had nothing to lose.
As I said, everyone here is at fault.
Although there's no precedent for a minority government to be replaced by a coalition government, there has been some interesting maneuvering. See (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/f-faq-coalition.html) for details.
If all this makes me a tool, fine. Maybe you can do me the courteousy by coming up with more creative names to sling my way.
Takuan: Which word?
Boba Fett: We have very divisive politics. Do you feel that a new party formed by the Liberals, Bloc, & NDP would help unite ideologies or would it only further server to fragment and frustrate?
Sorry about the long post. I'll get off my soapbox now. Gotta get a little bit of work done before I can get to the weekend.
for those that don't know how it works
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/harper_undemocratic_081204/20081204?hub=Politics
Sludge:
I'd like to find out.
With regard to having a government who's mandate you don't agree with and would never vote for, what do you think I and many other Canadians have been living with for the last couple of years. You realize that when you vote in a federal election, you're not voting for the PM or even the government. You are voting for an MP who may or may not be a member of the party that eventually has enough seats to form the government. Right now it seems that Harper does not have enough seats, and should the next vote result in a vote of no confidence, he will cease to lead the government. You may be frustrated, but this is how parliamentary democracy works.
While there is no precedent in Canada for a coalition taking power through loss of confidence in a minority government, there are a number of examples of minority governments being overturned in confidence votes. Should this happen, there would really only be two alternatives. Harper would be forced to call an election, or another party forms the government based on a majority of seats. This could occur through a coalition, or through government members crossing the floor. The question is: was this originally a ploy on the part of Harper to force a new election and gain a true majority (which seems to be an extremely cynical abuse of the system), or was it simply incompetence? Either way, Harper may be thwarted by the coalition (should it come into being), but another question remains: does a man who would make such an error in judgment still deserve to be the PM?
Minority governments get replaced by collation governments in parliamentary systems ALL THE TIME. This is what a parliamentary system is. In a parliamentary system the cabinet and prime minister are often called "the government". But in more general sense of the word, the parliament is the government. The parliament is elected by the people. The prime minister is elected by the parliament.
So what just happened in Canada is that Harper has suspended the democratically elected government by using the power of the British Monarchy as expressed by the Governor General. The Governor General is the British Governor of Canada. Canada is now a colony without representative democracy for the next two months.
Stephen - you just pointed out a most excellent thing. For the next two months, Canada is a monarchy truly under Royal rule.
This is an excellent opportunity for Michaelle Jean to use her power of absolute sovereignty, introduce a whole raft of truly progressive measures, and make Harper wish he had just let the coalition win because, as hampered as they would be by coalition horse-trading, they would effectively be a hundred times more reactionary than the enlightened dictatorship of Mme Jean.
Well, hey, a guy can dream, right?
Canada is a monarchy truly under Royal rule.
Since the Queen isn't ever allowed to say anything that Downing Street hasn't written for her, that would be a questionable characterization of the situation.
I don't understand how the NDP can get more votes and a higher percentage of the popular vote than the Bloc, but have less seats than the Bloc does. Harper hasn't had a majority even after an election and has no real plan for the collapse of the North American economy. He just wants to sit around and hope the problem goes away.
Look at the U.S., look at Europe, look at every other country Canada, they've done their bits to fix the economy but Harper says "We're not the United States or Western Europe or basically anywhere. Our economy isn't failing." I would support this coalition government wholeheartedly, I am in the divide between the Liberal and NDP so this gives me some idea.
BTW, Jack Layton isn't going to be the leader, Dion will. The BQ has only agreed to support this coalition on "confidence issues". The "separatists" as Mr. Harper so eloquently called them, are not going to control the government. It should alarm the same audience that he made the "separatists" crack to that the Bloc has more seats in Parliament even though it got fewer votes than the NDP, who have never thought of splitting Canada over a bullshit matter of "unique heritage" and "not being Canadian really". YOU SETTLED IN CANADA, YOU'LL SPEAK ENGLISH WITH A GRIN AND BEAR IT.
I see Harper has killed three more Canadians ,bringing the Afghanistan total to 100. He must be proud of the landmark.
Boba Fett: With every election there's going to be a percentage of the population that did not vote for the party who wins power. But the key word here is vote. My frustration stems from the back-room politics and games that are being played in attempt to grab power. I realize that these mechanisms are built into our system and well within the rights of any MP to use. But, to use your term, they are also deeply shady.
I'd have to agree that Harper has made many serious errors in judgment. Does he deserve to be in power? No, he probably doesn't. You can argue the Canadian Prime Ministers already have too much power and Harper's plan to kill public subsidies was scary. His party has already dropped this plan. But are dealings such as the Airbus and Sponsorship Scandal are better or worse examples in judgment?
'Tis a fine mess.
Here's where you're incorrect. Canadians did vote for the members that are now going to constitute the coalition government. Was Harper's name on your ballot when you last voted (unless you live in his riding, it wasn't)? I personally feel like we would be better served by proportional representation, but as long as the Conservatives can take seats where the NDP and Liberals split the vote, this can also happen.
Let's face it, Harper pulled a dick move and now he is paying the price, just as previous governments paid the price for their mistakes.
i dont know what you fail to grasp exactly sludge. is your only understanding of parliamentary democracy that which has occurred in Canada for the last 80 years? is your world view so narrow that you ignore precedent set in other parliamentary systems around the globe (that function just fine with coalition governments - see NZ, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, etc. etc. etc.).
in case you REALLY don't understand; coalitions do not 'run' as a single party or even sit as a single caucus (this is made quite clear in the actual accord document if you took the time to read it). many people, myself included were aware of the legal potential for a coalition government (and in fact favor this to a conservative anything) - because you are too dim to comprehend this as a likely outcome does not mean you are correct in claiming the NDP and Liberals must form a single party (the only two parties actually involved in an official coalition, the Bloc is merely complacent in its existence - again, if you took the time to examine the actual documents produced from the accord you would know this).
coalition governments are formed as a natural result of minority parliaments, that is parties choose to work together to form a majority rather than sit in grid-lock or potentially expensive cycles of election after election (which you apparently love the idea of, along with wasting 600 million dollars for the same results). the conservatives having the largest share of parliament, yet not having a majority is the OPPOSITE of a mandate, a mandate would be a strong majority that ensured a house that would allow for their political will to be expressed with minimal opposition. a minority government is a MANDATE for either co-operation or coalition, again, because you and so many other voters were dim enough not to see this as possible outcome does not exempt you from the consequences.
are you quite serious you would prefer to see another 300 million dollar election (and potentially a third straight conservative minority government that is extremely fallible) than to see a functioning government with an effective majority for a guaranteed 18 months??? this isn't america pal, we don't vote for one party to run the show, we vote for a group of representatives, how that shakes out can be quite varied and unique from parliament to parliament (just look at John A. MacDonalds parliaments of the 1860s).
on another note, do you sincerely believe there has not been enough blood-letting within the liberal party to somewhat exonerate this cast of leaders (be it Dion, Rae or Ignatieff) from any stench of recent scandal? what association do the current NDP leadership have with any provincial debacles? to qualify my previous statements, i have voted green in the last 5 federal elections, the only which i have been eligible for - just so you don't think i am some rabid grit or wacko socialist.
so long as Harper meets the gallows, the details don't matter.
just so you don't think i am some rabid grit or wacko socialist.
Maybe not; I really don't know you.
But you do seem like a barrel 'o fun.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wmortgage13/BNStory/Front/home