Jody Wilson Raybould MP v. Justin Trudeau PM - Alcyonenews

Go to content

Main menu:

Posted April 19, 2019

Jody Wilson Raybould MP v. Justin Trudeau PM

They call them “scandals” and the most notorious are sexy. Like the Christine Keeler one, in the mother of Parliaments – what  a killer this turned out to be!  Comparably  notorious was the  Thorpe case which involved sex, not heterosexual. In Canada, circa 1961, we had the Greta Munsinger scandal. She was a successful sex trade worker and it was this that prompted renown CBC reporter Norman Depoe to call Parliament “The House down there on the Hill”. In our times sex has given way, somewhat, to inanimate things like log splitters, but a big one now playing sprang from Political Party Perfidy.

This is the Jody (Williams Raybould) story playing out for months with no end in sight. There is, however an aspect of the scandal left untouched by the wordstorm falling on this asexual  megascandal. I cannot resist the opportunity.

Succinctly put, PM Justin demoted then AG Jody; she didn’t  like it and went public in an adroit way.  She got support from Minister Jane (Philpott). Both said that despite  Trudeau’s conduct, they would stay Liberal and run for re-election. That was too much for Justin to take and he kicked Jody and  Jane out of the Party.

Trudeau had “elected” Jody and Jane, insofar as he endorsed their candidacy in the election. What is wrong is that Party Bosses have the power to hire and fire peoples’ respresentatives and this is my point. It is the stealing  from the Demos (of Demo-cracy) the power to decide who is to govern the Society.

Denial of Party endorsement amounts to stripping citizens of their civil rights. Citizens may run for election without Party endorsement, but those who do are stigmatized “independent” to expose them being pariahs in Partyocracy. This, without even correspondingly stigmatizing Party-run Candidates as “Party Captives” to expose their submission to Party Whips. Evidently the “independents” are tolerated  to serve as fake “proof” that Partyocracy  has not eclipsed Democracy.  This is a farce.

Jane challenged Justin’s “right” to punish “peoples’ representatives”, if  insubordinate to him. Jane said he has no right to do that because the Harper government passed a law ostensibly to “democratize” Partyocracy. Jane could be right, except that this law applies only to the Political Parties who choose to abide by it. Since the Liberals have not chosen to abide, Justin retains “devine right” to kick Jody and Jane out of his flock.

Imagine a law against stealing bicycles giving thieves an option to opt out of it at will. That the politician’s made such a choice available to thieves of Democracy, exemplifies the raison d’ etre of Partyocracy. In reality, Partyocracy exists specifically to neuter or extinguish Democracy, not unlike police exist to make gangstering unprofitable.

Suppose Jody and Jane are elected  “independents”. This would make only a dent in Justin’s flock of “nobodies”, which is how Trudeau-the-Father, called  the peoples’ representatives, a variant to “Fuddle Duddling” them.  Hardly different  from Brian Mulroney calling them “trained seals” and us, the people at large, politely calling them  “rubberstamps”.

Let’s now imagine liberating parliament by declaring Parties  personae non gratae and evicting them from Parliament Hill. Visualize a parliament of members elected on personal merit instead of for “subservience to parties”. In such a milieu Jody or Jane  could even be made Prime Minister, selected by her colleagues. But she would serve at the pleasure of the people, exercised via their MPs. This would immunize the PM  against the “power-corrupts” virus. But, if the PM succumbs, the MPs would quickly take care of that. For example, if Jody was preparing to spend $5.5B for a rusty  pipeline, she would be quickly transferred from the PMO to Infirmary.

This would not invoke an election, because it was not the House who attempted the folly, it was the PM; the Parliament saved society the consequences from that  massive waste of funds. The changeover of the PM would be a mere “Prime Minister shuffling”, similar to familiar “cabinet shufflings”, but with the dog wagging the tail, instead of the tail wagging the dog.

I would take it a tad further. Assume that parties  were to exist after being distanced from the Hill. They could exercise the rights of association and expression. They could publish “platforms” and otherwise make suggestions to candidates pro- and post-electorally all to their heart’s content. But their ideas would trade solely on merit.       

In that environment candidate Jody could adopt any parties’ platform, or pick and mix from these, add and alter items, as Jane and all other candidates could also do. Those thus elected  would be accountable to their constituents and their consience. No Party could intimidate any MP, they all would be free as they must be. For a society cannot be free whille “governed” by people herded by Party Whips. This is plain and simple.

Then people who now stay away for politics because they will not prostitute themselves to Parties, would come forth to serve, thereby enabling democracy to pull the nation forward.  This would please Plato who determined that until “philosophers supplant kings”, society would not be free.   

Tom V.

Back to content | Back to main menu