It’s not about the Senate, this Duffygate brouhaha, although no doubt the Harperium wants us to think so.
It’s not about how deceitful and rotten at heart media stars are, either, although perhaps King Stevie hopes we will drop our respect for journalists—that will make the death of CBC easier to swallow.
It’s about control. Specifically, Stevie’s maniacal need for total control.
By now it’s obvious that our noble leader wants to get rid of the Senate, CBC, scientists, and any other institution that might criticize his policies (I’m restraining the use of adjectives here—leave that for another day!)—and he’ll go to any lengths to achieve those goals.
What shocks me most about Duffygate is the revelation of the extent of control the Harperium exercises over the Senate. I have always thought of the Senate as a group of elders who can contribute non-partisan second thought to Parliament’s decisions. It turns out the upper house is anything but non-partisan—it’s a playground for Harper’s machinations. I was astonished to learn that these senators were not only permitted but required and paid for public gigs whose main purpose was the conversion of more sheeple to the Conservative cause.
What were Harper’s motives, do you suppose, in appointing popular public figures to the Senate only to profess deep shock over their alleged misuse of public funds?
Can Wallin’s and Duffy’s stories be total lies? Hardly. There must be at least some truth to their claims of being framed.
The underworld has a four-letter word for a power monger who uses the popularity of others to bolster his own and then uses them again to proclaim his superior strength and morals—thug. We might get a higher level of POGG (Peace, Order and Good Government) from mafiosi.
Don’t fall into Stevie’s trap of thinking this mess has revealed a need for Senate abolition or reform. What we will remember Duffygate for is the revelation that our emperor is the man behind the curtain, every time, and indeed he wears no clothes.
It’s nearly impossible to abolish the Senate anyway. It’s embedded in the Constitution and the amendment formula for that puppy is heavy and awkward and doesn’t run on casters. So forget that. Perhaps some reform, however, might make better Prime Ministers out of the thugs who manage to get themselves (s)elected with a mere 22% of the electorate behind them. Hmm…I wonder if we could change the rules for appointing senators, say, by not being able to appoint anyone who has been a member of one’s own party for the previous five years or who has ever made a donation to one’s party? That should cut down on the partisanship and go a long way to giving us back a house of sober second thought.