Status of Women committee and the law of unintended consequences

John Ivison and Andrew Coyne in today's National post.

Even the Globe and Mail is standing up for Rachael Harder, and point out the ludicrous behaviour of Justin Trudeau and his feminists friends:

"Think of it this way: Were Rachael Harder, the Alberta MP in question, fired from a job in a private company, or from the public service, for the same reason, she would be the victim of a violation of her Charter rights."

They really don't have a clue do they. As someone pointed out to me, making an issue of this just shines a bright light on how dumb a move this was:

"It is highly ironic that by storming out of the committee meeting and making a federal case of it, that these women may have transformed Rachel Harder into a martyr of sorts for the prolife cause, talk about the law of unintended consequences. If the committee had debated the motion for her leadership, and quietly voted against it would anyone have even known about it? Look at all the media coverage during the last several days."

I agree. Trudeau's actions have back fired. How nice.

And then there's Joyce Arthur and her merry band of radical pro-abortion groups who also spoke out against Rachael Harder. Just shows their own intolerance and extreme position on everything related to abortion even when it isn't about abortion. They even have the nerve to mention the Charter. Do these people ever listen to themselves?

Mr Harper: Who has the remote?

I like John Ivison's perspective on Mike Duffy and our Senate situation, and his speculation about why all those bright lights may have been recently shone on it.

Ivison compares this situation with the TV character Frank Underwood:

Frank “The Whip” Underwood was speaking from experience when he said: “Friends make the worst enemies.” Kevin Spacey’s menacing character in House of Cards is intent on bringing down all those on his own team who betrayed him when he was passed over for high office. 

The vindictiveness, if not the malevolence, bears a striking similarity to a certain former Conservative senator, who feels he has been thrown to the wolves by his former colleagues, in the interests of political expediency, while innocent of all transgressions. 

...Likewise, a National Post story that suggested Mr. Duffy’s lawyers will call Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a witness, if the case goes to court. 

The suggestion is that the course of events recalled by Mr. Duffy do not tally with the version put on the public record by the Prime Minister — a tantalizing prospect that would surely have repercussions on Mr. Harper’s grip on power were he to add to, or change, his story under oath.

And then Ivison moves on to this knockout punch:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Harper's fear of the abortion debate did make him do something else that was controversial (like changing the may senate expenses are done) in order to change the channel.

Ah yes. The dreaded abortion debate. Mr. Harper sure does hate that topic. Yep. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Command and control by the Great Helmsman

John Ivison's article in today's National Post is a must read. Ivison discusses the current implosion going on within the Conservative Caucus.

I've cut and pasted some of his comments.  

"...Senior figures in the Conservative movement are warning that unless Stephen Harper moves his House Leader, Peter Van Loan, and the Government Whip, Gordon O’Connor, more MPs will follow the unlikely rebel, Brent Rathgeber, out of the caucus door.

The changes must be accompanied by reforms to the way the Prime Minister’s Office treats backbenchers, according to one former Cabinet minister. And the Prime Minister needs to draw into his inner circle people who are prepared to tell him things he may not want to hear.

...This is not a battle over ideology or policy. Rather, according to both current and former members of caucus, the backbench is a cauldron of seething resentment because of sheer, bloody mismanagement – “a growing, dictatorial ‘PMO knows best’ attitude.”

...But they [Private Member's Bills] have an importance beyond their success rate because they help push the public agenda – they sometimes find their way into subsequent government legislation; they can encourage government departments to adjust their behaviour; and, they offer the oxygen of publicity for interest groups.

As such they are guarded jealously by MPs. It is considered “unparliamentary” for the House, far less the MP’s own party to amend legislation without the approval of the sponsoring MP.

Members can be told before caucus that their party doesn’t support the proposed legislation and, if they persist, that the leadership will urge its backbenchers to vote against it. But a number of Conservative MPs say they are mortified at the unprecedented step of malleable Conservatives in the Ethics Committee amending Mr. Rathgeber’s bill against his wishes.

The finger of blame has been pointed squarely at Peter Van Loan, described by one Conservative as “the most reviled member of caucus.”. The finger of blame has been pointed squarely at Mr. O’Connor, a former brigadier-general used to his orders being obeyed without question, and Mr. Van Loan, described by one Conservative as “the most reviled member of caucus.” But they are merely the enablers of a command and control structure where the word is written by the Great Helmsman and interpreted by the cadre of youthful Blue Guards in his office.

For Conservatives who joined a party founded on “the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions,” recent developments have proven shocking.

...The caucus is not feeling the love from the Prime Minister, who now seems to believe a good number of his MPs are on his enemies list because they won’t give him their unconditional support in all circumstances.

...Mr. Harper doesn’t like being pushed into anything but such a course of action would send the message that if the party is going to go over the cliff, he intends to be in the driving seat, Thelma and Louise-style.