Thursday, September 13, 2007

Marc Mayrand -- Reluctant Hero?

Anybody remember MASH? There was one (at least) episode in which the incompetent Frank Burns threw a surgical instrument at a nurse and demanded that she give him something else. She protested that she had given him exactly what he had asked for, to which he yelled, "Don't give me what I ask for! Give me what I want!"

Frank Burns has reincarnated as Stephen Harper and the hapless nurse who was being verbally abused is now Marc Mayrand.

The amendments to this document got Royal Assent less than three months ago. The wording of that document is now the law of the land. And the relevant portion is about halfway down, and begins with the words, "21. Sections 143 to 145 of the Act are replaced by the following:" Nowhere in that document does it say anything about women having to remove their veils. Matter of fact, it states rather pertinently that if the identity of any voter is in question, one of the options of two pieces of non-picture ID is acceptable proof of eligibility. There is also another option for the taking of an oath. Another option says that someone who is a registered voter in the riding may vouch for the veracity of eligibility. Nowhere does it say that a veiled woman must lift her veil.

Marc Mayrand pointed this out. Harper had a meltdown. A complete, out-of-control, hyperventilating, foaming-at-the-mouth-and-biting-sticks-type meltdown. His toadies and lickspittles in Caucus followed in lockstep. Mayrand refuses to back down, and good for him. He's the one who's actually doing his job, here.

I don't care how many illiterate, lobotomized members of fucking parliament bang on podiums and scream with impotent anger for him to change his mind -- Marc Mayrand is not the lawmaker here any more than that nurse was the surgeon! If you want the law to read that Muslim women have to remove their veils before they vote in a federal election, then you have to make sure the law says precisely that!


Anonymous Alex Thomas said...


Riddle: what are the differences between genius and stupidity?
Answer: One: Genius is rarely ever in charge.
Two: Genius has its limits.
There was a time when the price of liberty was vigilance. We have come to a time when the price of vigilance is liberty. We have yet to learn.
When the people give up liberty to obtain security, the people wind up with neither.
Hatred is the child of anger. Anger is the child of fear. Fear is the anticipation of pain.
Genius has been described as the capacity of taking pain to achieve a desired outcome.
Life is supposed to hurt. That way, you know you’re alive.
Western society has reached the condition of bread and circuses. We eat junk food, we watch junk entertainment, and we are meant to be content.
Even contented cows are eventually slaughtered.
As individuals, we are capable of random kindness and acts of senseless beauty.
Collectively, we have not the sense of a colony of ants.
When an individual makes sense, the crowd will seek to silence him. Collective stupidity cannot withstand individual genius. I could site multiple examples, but that would defeat the purpose of this essay: to make you THINK.
Government of the people, for the people and by the people is a fine theory.
Government over the people, against the people and in spite of the people is the usual practice, and, for those in charge, it works.
Adlai Stevenson summed it up beautifully. He was told that he deserved the vote of every thinking person in America, and he sadly replied, “Unfortunately, to win, I would need a majority.” He knew.
The lesson of history has always been that we do not learn from the lessons of history.
We have yet to learn.
My name is Alex Thomas. I am Canadian.

Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home