Opinion: Critics of the government need evidence to back up their claims
It’s now obvious we must plead with the United Nations Security Council to propose and agree upon a resolution espousing military intervention to restore our failed democracy — at least before a barbarous civil war erupts.
You’d think this a wise measure given the opposition’s vociferous and inflated allegations concerning the actions of RackNine, an Edmonton calling firm with Conservative ties.
Mysterious phone-calls, deceiving voters during the May federal election, have emerged only to become fodder for the New Democratic and Liberal parties. The Harper government has fallen victim to a slanderous barrage of speculative rhetoric — an anomalous occurrence indeed.
Many opposition MPs have already sharpened their guillotines, ready to behead the purported Conservative autocrats. Voter suppression and election fixing have become commonplace terms in the House of Commons, media, and on university campuses. You’d think a cogent argument would accompany calls for a new election.
Oddly, evidence validating these substantial assertions hasn’t arisen. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to many, for opposition MPs make a living of excoriating any and every government happening, logic notwithstanding.
The baseless claims of politicians aren’t entirely worrisome. However, the regurgitations of subservient youth who accept conjecture as well-reasoned, irrefutable fact exemplify utter dull-wittedness — dull-wittedness akin to that of a sea urchin.
I’d like to pose a question to this inconsistent bunch, most likely the same inconsistent bunch that lambasted the Conservative government’s disregard for evidence in their push for mandatory minimums.
I’d like to pose a question to this erratic group. Most likely, the same erratic group that scolded Bill C-30 and its supposed disregard for due process, giving police access to sensitive information without a warrant based on reasonable evidence.
My question is: why is your contempt for evidence discretionary? Proponents of a revolt against the Conservatives and the televised execution of Stephen Harper are implying a zeal that raises another concern.
Given the Harper-destroys-democracy fanaticism, why did this issue take nearly a year to surface? These allegations, driven by a tremendous fervor, are serious. I can’t help but wonder why people didn’t report their democracy stolen immediately after the election.
Modernity has given us the tools necessary to effortlessly communicate and rapidly disseminate information. Supposedly, 39 ridings had received fraudulent calls, and not a single person in any one of those ridings notified Elections Canada without delay.
Not to say the phone calls didn’t in fact take place, it’s peculiar that only now these accusations have hijacked public discourse.
I’ve heard members of the general public demand another nation-wide election be held as a result of the malpractice under review, which is a risible request. This asininity will not receive any attention, for only a psychologist can ameliorate this deficiency.
Of the alleged 39 ridings in which malfeasance occurred, there have been requests to hold byelections. This proposal is a tad more reasonable. That is, if there is legitimate evidence of Conservative misconduct.
Despite that, as John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail has conveniently pointed out, “Many of the ridings identified by the opposition parties as places where dirty tricks took place were, in fact, won by opposition parties . . . Many of the other allegedly targeted ridings were safe Tory seats that needed no underhanded tactics to return the incumbent . . . all of which the Conservatives took by 10,000 votes or more.”
Irrespective of the heinous stratagem, its outcome was arguably futile. This claim isn’t infallible, but it’s premised on more reason than the claims of those who believe otherwise.
Lastly, we must look to the proverbial snippet “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.” Accordingly, there’s a chance the Conservatives could be found guilty of unethical behavior, and if so should face the appropriate consequences. That being said, my stance remains, for groundless statements are to be left at home in every instance until they can be proven.
Albeit, whilst the adherents of ill-founded claims spew their groundless vitriol, we must accredit them for their gallantry, for behaving as such is virtually intellectual sacrifice, if not suicide. A question Bob Rae recently asked in the House of Commons can be cited.
“When is the prime minister of Canada going to take some degree of personal responsibility for what is taking place in this country?” he taunted.
Ironically, it’s interesting to note that Rae has yet to take any degree of personal responsibility for his poor performance in Ontario years ago. He professed rather recently, “A lot of things [he] did and faced as premier [he’s] frankly very proud of.”
That’s great for Bob. However, regardless of any news that may surface after this is written, I’m frankly very proud there are people who respect due process, understand that you are innocent until proven guilty, and don’t have the analytical depth of a mollusk.
— Alex Vronces
first-year journalism and economics