Monday, February 27, 2012

Enabling Election Fraud

My favorite enabler is Andrew Coyne, because he gets quoted all the time by Progressive Bloggers and always gets a pass as a voice of non partisan conservatism. Re-read Mr. Coyne’s heavily linked National Post article on the conservative electoral fraud. The first paragraph lists everything “we do not know”.
We do not know whether the calls were made by members of the Conservative party. We do not know whether any Conservative authorized them, or even knew about them. We do not know whether anyone was prevented from voting, or had their vote changed, as a result, nor do we know whether the results of any riding were affected.
Or in short there’s no proof that the conservatives did anything. The middle of his piece is all about how serious this is and how Harper is changing the ethics etc. etc. etc. and then we get to the closing paragraph and the other great Harpercon spin.
The progression is sadly familiar. Having first compromised its beliefs, a party finds it is easier to compromise its principles; having compromised its principles, it learns to compromise its ethics; and compromises of ethics, as we have seen in other parties, lead sooner or later to compromises with the law.
If you think I am being too harsh on Mr. Coyne, go back and re-read his MacLeans post from a year ago about the illegal In & Out fraud.
My point is not to exonerate the Conservatives. It is rather to suggest that this is hardly the sort of cut-and-dried case of “electoral fraud” the opposition, and it seems large sections of the media, have decided it is. It is indeed, as the Conservative talking points insist, a dispute about accounting standards, and shifting standards at that: as of 2006, Elections Canada’s “Handbook for Candidates” really did seem to allow, in the judgment of the Federal Court, the very practices that are now in dispute.
Maybe if Coyne had stepped up last year over the fraud from the previous election, Harper might not have been so quick to participate in election fraud this year.
Oh sorry we haven't proven that Harper participated yet.

2 comments:

Beijing York said...

This is quite the new set-up, Willy. Very sleek.

And yes, what's with this enabling crap. Is it Ibbitson who is now saying that yup this is really ugly and bad but Harper is still the best guy to steer us through economic troubles.

WILLY said...

The new set-up was a mistake, but it starting to grow on me.

The fact that the PMO has issued orders to use the economist defence this early means that this might be a bigger threat that I thought. Cool.