Monday, December 07, 2009

Mulcair's Crocodile Tears

Susan Delacourt, writes this about the NDP reaction to the December 6 anniversary:
New Democratic Party MP Thomas Mulcair presented a letter to the Commons from 15 women's groups in Quebec, arguing that the firearms registry was still vital to protecting women against violence.

Mulcair, talking to reporters later, agreed it would be "tragic" if the long-gun registry is dismantled after the Conservatives' private-members' bill passes through the committee stage and further votes in the Commons. It cleared an important hurdle last month with second reading, approval by a majority of MPs, including a number of New Democrats and Liberals. (emphasis mine)
Save your sympathy for someone who gives a shit. Your party had a chance to take a stand for women and you sold them out for the "rural" vote. Do you expect people not to remind you of this fact, every time you open your mouth to wail about it being "tragic", as if it was a natural disaster, like an earthquake or fire? Your caucus enabled this "tragedy". This "tragic" outcome is on Jack Layton's head, not God's.
Recommend this Post


  1. Susan,
    It's all well and good to show our displeasure in our politicians when they don't see to our best interest, but I think that your anger is misplaced when pointing it at Mr. Mulcair.
    I've been following this issue closely and was watching when Mr. Mulcair made his statement in the House. Knowing that most NDP MPs are voting to maintain the registry and that the minority (many who represent rural ridings) are voting to undermine it; I saw the statements made as a message to his own party colleagues. I was quite pleased with the individual's gesture. With any luck, his statements will have spoken to to some of the Liberals who seemed poised to vote in favour of this abhorrent Bill.
    I would have understood getting mad at the MPs who are voting to dismantle and the Party leader does have the power to "whip" a vote, but to concentrate your attack on the voice of sanity in that party seems counter-productive.

  2. Mulcair must agree with the stance of his leader (that this is a non-whipped bill) or he would be sitting as an independent. However, you are right that my scorn is mostly directed at Jack Layton and the NDP "brain trust". Layton and his gang have screwed the pooch on this issue, to the point where I have little patience for the regrets of individual members. Call me petty (guilty), but that is how I feel.

  3. MPs might part company with their parties if the party is trying to whip them to vote in a way that they can't accept. But if every MP left their party when they didn't agree with the party stance, there would be no parties left. That might be a good thing over all, but it still wouldn't solve the gun-registry issue to our satisfaction. Everyone is already voting to please their constituents or their conscience, cause no party is whipping.

  4. The problem here is the caucus did not even bother to vote according to their own party's policy. At that point one must ask one's self why bother with a party policy if it is going to be ignored because some members are too cowardly to stand up for it to their constituents? I would say that is a big enough issue to leave caucus over.

  5. OK Greg,
    Let me see if I'm getting this. You think that every member of the NDP who believes that the gun-registry is an important piece of legislation which should not be undermined should leave their caucus because their leaders isn't whipping the vote. Am I missing something?
    If they all left their caucus, where would that get us? It would leave each one of the newly-minted independents much freer to vote in accordance with their constituents or their conscience and much less likely feel beholden to the ethos of their former party. Meantime, the "redneck" would be the only ones left to rule an otherwise progressive political "formation".
    Out of the fry pan and into the fire!