The choice for GOV GEN.

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

Should the Gov Gen not be the best representation of a Canadian, with an impecable past? Im sorry but IMHO the fact that FLQ involvement was even brought up tells me where theres smoke, theres fire.

 

[edadian]

It is just separatists causing trouble. It would be best avoid stirring up controversy because it gives into the separatists aim to discredit a popular federalist Quebec.

 

[Bug Guy]

It is just separatists causing trouble. It would be best avoid stirring up controversy because it gives into the separatists aim to discredit a popular federalist Quebec.

Let's face it.  Seperatists are like herpies, they have their active cycle.  As far as the new choice is concerned, I have to agree that I am not impressed.  Would past generations agree and future generations be supported?  Personally I doubt it.  But Clarkson is a hard act to follow, she took her job seriously and was supportive of the military.

 

[Blakey]

Thank-You for alerting me to this topic  (You know who you are)

Here is one of the "many" articles that call into question the "Loyalty" of our new GG elect and her husband.
If you have read it already, my apologies. I should say that this is from Charles Adler's site, a daytime talk radio personality. In Winnipeg he has become somewhat of an iconic figure for his "straight" talk and "pulling no punches" attitude with regards to the coverage of controversial news topics, or "anything under the sun". (to steal a quote from another excellent talk radio personalty, Peter Warren.)

Link To Article (By NELSON WYATT)


Link To Homepage (Charles Adler)

Now, before everyone jumps on me, my opinion on this matter is that if the GG elect AND OR her husband voted FOR separation in the last referendum then in my opinion she should gracefully resign. In any case I for one would like to here from themselves in regards to this matter, I'd like to here directly from them what their rational behind voting for separatism was?, and if they did and now have "switched" over to "federalism" what prompted them to make that switch during the past 10 years?

I for one, would like to have answers to all of these questions answered because until then, in my eyes they have no credibility with me.....

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I was under the impression that how she voted in the last referendum is nobody's business but her own.  Isn't that one of the freedoms our military has fought to defend?

 

[Blakey]

So, if they had a subversive or ulterior motive you wouldn't care?

 

[Gunner]

I agree with Michael, how Jean and her husband voted in 1995 is moot at this point.  We have all done stupid things in our past..

I do expect her (and him) as the appointed Governor General of Canada to renounced any and all sympathies towards Quebec sovereigntists who are intent on breaking up this country. I think the PMO stifling her ability to speak out has contributed to this media frenzy and it is damaging her credibility and the Prime Minister. 

 

[Blakey]

Well, its not inconsequential in my opinion, if there isn't anything to hide...let the people of both countries know, Canada and Quebec.

I think the PMO stifling her ability to speak out has contributed to this media frenzy...

I wasn't aware that it was, honestly.

I do expect her (and him) as the appointed Governor General of Canada to renounced any and all sympathies towards Quebec sovereigntists who are intent on breaking up this country.

I agree, but, if one was a card carring member previously in the "sovereigntist movement" within Quebec, would you not care about the rational behind there about-face on the issue?

What it all boils down to, at least for me, is what was the motivating factor('s) (if they did vote for sovereignty) that they had this miraculous 180 degree in there thinking?

 

[jmacleod]

In Canada, and in all countries where the standard is the British system of representative government
the ballot is secret. In Canada, the ballot in a municipal, provincial or federal election is secret. The
Premier of New Brunswick has brought up the issue of the attitude of Conservative Leader Hon.
Stephen Harper, PC, MP, whom he would dearly love to discredit, on the contrived issue of how
the newly appointed GGC voted in a referendum, where the ballot is secret. The Premier of New
Brunswick seeks to discredit the Hon. Stephen Harper, PC. MP Leader of the Opposition, who
appears disinterested in discussing a secret ballot. Did the Premier of New Brunswick vote for
the Hon. Stephen Harper in the Conservative leadership race?  We will never know; it's a secret.
Would the Liberal Party of Canada welcome the Premier of New Brunswick as leader of the
Conservative Party; of course, it's no secret. MacLeod

 

[beach_bum]

Well, its not inconsequential in my opinion, if there isn't anything to hide...let the people of both countries know, Canada and Quebec.I wasn't aware that it was, honestly.I agree, but, if one was a card carring member previously in the "sovereigntist movement" within Quebec, would you not care about the rational behind there about-face on the issue?

What it all boils down to, at least for me, is what was the motivating factor('s) (if they did vote for sovereignty) that they had this miraculous 180 degree in there thinking?

Frankly, I quite agree with you.  As the Queen's representative, how does she feel about it?  I know that I would be very interested in hearing her part.  I have many questions about her and would love answers.  Sadly, I don't think I'll ever get any.

 

[Gunner]

I agree, but, if one was a card carring member previously in the "sovereigntist movement" within Quebec, would you not care about the rational behind there about-face on the issue?

The issue is not whether she is a card carrying member of the FLQ, BQ, or PQ in that there has not been any proof that she was.  The question was how did she vote during the 1995 referendum and, quite honestly, I agree with jmcleod.  The vital ground is where her sympathy lies as the "head of Canada".  I assumed she was a federalist having taken the job but I would have to go over her "acceptance" speech again to confirm what she stated and, as I mentioned, I think it is a mistake not allowing her to speak out against these allegations.  The PMO imposed silence simply allows the seed of doubt to fester in the media and political pundits.

Lest there be no doubt, I am not in favour of this appointment as I do not think she has achieved the level of national stature that I deem sufficient to be worthy of the job, moveover, I am very much against the patronage appointment of a poliitcal hack to represent my country.  However, having said that, I am not going to judge Jean or her husband for having "hung around" or had/have a "sympathetic ear" for those wanting to break apart Canada.  Certainly the previous referendum's have all be fairly close and if 1 in every 2 people voted against the federal government, don't you think you would actually know someone who voted yes.

In the end, remember, even Jesus walked and associated with the prostitutes and tax collectors and looked how he turned out! 

 

[48Highlander]

I agree with Michael, how Jean and her husband voted in 1995 is moot at this point.   We have all done stupid things in our past..

Well, let's use another example.  There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.  Would you say that his past is also irelevant?  Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?

 

[Gunner]

Well, let's use another example.  There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.  Would you say that his past is also irelevant?  Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?

I thiink we are talking about asking a person how they voted in a secret ballot and the reason for not has been well articulated by Jmcleod above. 

Let's keep the thread on track and leave the digression into Iranian affairs for another thread.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, let's use another example.  There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.  Would you say that his past is also irelevant?  Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?

Gunner is right about talking Iran in another thread, but you do provide an interesting example that I think is an acceptable parallel.  Is his past irrelevant?  I think it shows where his loyalties lay at some time in the past.  It wouldn't make him more or less likely to build nuclear bombs, taken on its own.

Do we think the Governor General is likely to dissolve Parliament and ...well, what, exactly?  Ratify a motion to seperate?  Even if she was a seperatist, what influence could she exercise in order to achieve that goal?  I don't know which is why I ask.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well, let's use another example.   There's pretty good evidence that the current president of Iran was one of the hostage takers in the 1979 crisis at the US embasy in Tehran.   Would you say that his past is also irelevant?   Would you trust him enough to allow Iran to research nuclear technology for "peaceful purpuses"?

I think the difference there is hostage taking is a crimminal whereas being a separatist in Canada is not.

 

[Blakey]

The issue is not whether she is a card carrying member of the FLQ, BQ, or PQ

Gunner,
My mistake, my previous post should have read as such; 

if one was a "card carring member" previously in the sovereigntist movement within Quebec,

Either way, it's all the same in my eyes, let us know where you (GG/ husband) stand on the issue, and dispel any false accusations that may have been leveled against you. Failing to refute such claims will inevitably lead to speculation, thus the need for a public address...

 

[48Highlander]

Gunner is right about talking Iran in another thread, but you do provide an interesting example that I think is an acceptable parallel.   Is his past irrelevant?   I think it shows where his loyalties lay at some time in the past.   It wouldn't make him more or less likely to build nuclear bombs, taken on its own.
Do we think the Governor General is likely to dissolve Parliament and ...well, what, exactly?   Ratify a motion to seperate?   Even if she was a seperatist, what influence could she exercise in order to achieve that goal?   I don't know which is why I ask.

I was using Iran as a more extreme example, I didn't mean to bring the thread off topic.

You have a point about peoples past not ALWAYS being indicative of their future performance, however, most of the time the past is the BEST indication of future performance.  If a Pte. on a course keeps screwing up, the staff generally considers him a shitpump and keep a closer eye on him.  If you've gotten charged numerous times for insubordination, you're pretty unlikely to get a leadership course.  And so on.  The way people have behaved in the past is always relevant to the way we judge them, and being a seperatist is no different.  Does the fact she voted to seperate mean she still feels the same way?  Probably yes, but maybe not.  Either way we'd be better off choosing someone who never held such views.

As to what she could DO about it...well, she's not going to force the country apart, but do we really want an official representing our country who beleives that we shouldn't even BE a country?  Especially when there's so many other candidates to chose from?  If her resume was a thousand times better than any other person who was considered for this position, then yeah, ok, let's ignore her past views about seperation and see how she does.  However, when there are other candidates who are just as qualified, if not more so, and who do NOT side with seperatists, well, it should have been a no-brainer.

I think the difference there is hostage taking is a crimminal whereas being a separatist in Canada is not.

Like I said, obviously it's a more extreme example.  I wasn't trying to make her out to be a criminal, I was simply pointing out that her past views on seperation are VERY relevant as to wether or not she's a suitable choice for GG.

 

[Blakey]

48Highlander,
Although I agree with most of your post, i do not agree with;

If her resume was a thousand times better than any other person who was considered for this position, then yeah, ok, let's ignore her past views about seperation and see how she does.

Using another extreme example, if as you say here resume was a thousand times better than say...Don Cherry's resume, I would still pick Don Cherry. I (as well most Canadians) at least know Don Cherry, he's very opinionated, loud mouthed, and pulls no punches, sometimes it's the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

at least know Don Cherry, he's very opinionated, loud mouthed, and pulls no punches,

Exactly the traits you want for a senior diplomat who travels abroad to represent the country....

Granted, some have argued that is not the G-G's mandate, but I think the position has evolved to include that.

Can you honestly see Cherry giving a eulogy half as eloquent as the one Adrienne Clarkson delivered for the Unkown Soldier?  Or greeting foreign dignitaries (especially Europeans, given his views on European hockey players)?  Or having any appeal whatsoever in Quebec?

What is it you think a Governor General does, incidentally?

 

[Blakey]

Exactly the traits you want for a senior diplomat who travels abroad to represent the country....

Granted, some have argued that is not the G-G's mandate, but I think the position has evolved to include that.

Can you honestly see Cherry giving a eulogy half as eloquent as the one Adrienne Clarkson delivered for the Unkown Soldier?   Or greeting foreign dignitaries (especially Europeans, given his views on European hockey players)?   Or having any appeal whatsoever in Quebec?

What is it you think a Governor General does, incidentally?

Using another extreme example,

Read the above quote... :
Edited to add:

What is it you think a Governor General does, incidentally?

Maybe represent the country without any untoward bias??? I dunno call me crazy...