graeme
King Stephen
Posted on: 08/03/2012 20:38
Stephen Harper made an astonishing announcment yesterday. More asrounding is that I have not come across any reference to it in local news media. Has it been commented on in yours?
When the Wheat Board was in operation, it was illegal for growers to sell to anyone but the wheat board. Some did, were tried, and were found guilty.
As a matter of ideology, Harper disliked the wheat board, and disbanded it. Then he issued a pardon to all those who had been convicted. Notice I say HE.
The normal process under law is that requests for pardon are sent to and decided on by parole boards. His authority? He claimed the right to do so under the ancient prerogative of royalty to issue pardons.
Well, for openers, he's not royal. And one reason the prerogative is called ancient is that it ended even before democracy with the expansion of rule by law. If the prerogative of royalty exists, and even if a real king is using it, that means the person doing it has the power - as did Henry 8 to divorce his wife and cut their heads off. Under the Canadian constitution, though, the pm is a nobody. He is not royalty. He is not the first citizen. He is just a member of parliament. And no MP has the right to declare a royal prerogative, anyway.
Why did he do it? to play to the moron section of his political base, of course. But a parole board would have done it just as quickly - and legally.
What Harper has done, in all seriousness, is to declare himself our king. He doesn't need parliament. Just himself.
This is bizarre. It suggests, at least, a towering ego - and, more likely, some degree of mental imbalance.
have you news media looked at this?
Search
Recently Active...
Comments
Alex
Posted on: 08/03/2012 21:08
According to this it was not Harper who granted the pardon but the GG on the advice of the Public Safety Minister. According to the Gazette this is unusually becasue it was done for political reasons. In the past it was only done when someone was obviously wrongly convicted of a crime, and the governement did not wish to wait until a court said so.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/national/Wheat+board+pardons/7033655/story.html
It shows Harper's contempt for democracy. Since these are politcial pardons they should have been included in an act of parliment.
alta
Posted on: 08/04/2012 00:38
It was all over the news out here.
I'm not as outraged over it as others are. But then again, I only have a mild dis-taste for PM Harper, rather than a full blown hatred. I don't think he did anything really wrong besides taking credit for someone else's work; and we see that all to often in politics.
As far as the pardons go, I disagree with them. The farmers in question were convicted after a fair trial. They knew the consequences of what they were doing, and went ahead anyway because they believed in their cause enough to take the punishment they knew would be coming their way. I salute their commitment, if not their cause.
BUT, I also see the point in pardoning someone of a crime that isn't a crime anymore.
graeme
Posted on: 08/04/2012 10:03
And that's part of what parole boards are for.
Nobody in that cabinet does anything without Harper's consent. And certaintly a Minister of Public Safety does not go to the governor general without order's from Harper.
The governor general should certainly have questioned this one, as he should have questioned the omnibus bill. But governors general have not questioned anything since the 1920s. The fact is there is no longer any reason for having a governor general.
In the US, a president can issue a pardon. But a US president is not simply an mp. He is the american equivalent of a king. (In fact, the American government is pretty much modelled on the British one of 1776. The US simply chose to elect the king )for a limited period) and the house of lords. (as the senate).
Alex
Posted on: 08/04/2012 11:02
Can Parliment pass a law that gives pardons or amnesty to convicts.
IE. WHen people were allowed to hand over unregistered guns, they were not charged.
OR suppose Parliment decriminalised the poseession of pot, could they not also do this (perhaps retroactively) so that people who had been convicted have their records wiped clean?
graeme
Posted on: 08/04/2012 21:53
I suppose it can. I can see no reason why it couldn't. Not sure it's a good idea as it sounds, though.
Usually, any person who breaks a law is a person who is a threat to society - and should stay in prison. Al Capone, for example, was a person worth keepiing in jail after prohibition ended because his defiance of the law identified him as a threat. I should think the same thing would be true of a wheat smuggler. Both knew they were breaking a law, and neither was acting on any principle.
Now, if a person broke the law on a point of moral principle (and so long as breaking it did not cause harm to anybody, and if that law were later revoked), I can see the point of a pardon.
A U.S. president can simply order a pardon because he's a chief executive. A p.m. is not.
In this case, a Heritage Minister advised the governor general to issue the pardon. obviously, Harper told him to do it.
Now, a governor-general is NOT required to take the advice of the government. He always has since the 1920s. But he still has the right to refuse - and the obligation to refuse if he thinks the advice improper in any way.
Usually, that applies to a vote in the commons and senate. I get a little uncomfortable when the advice come directly from the pm alone (though that's legal) - and very, very uncomfortable when it comes simply from a cabinet minister. i think the governor general should have asked some questions first.
graeme
Posted on: 08/04/2012 21:56
Oh, in the case of decriminalization of possessing drugs, the convicted person knew it was a crime at the time it happened, knew he or she was breaking a law, and knew it was helping along a violent and criminal industry. i don't see any reason to clear the slate.