Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
My opinion is that it was an unsaid policy previously, and wasn't abused often. The Harper government put the policy to paper, and people that hated him used it as ammunition to hate on him.
In my opinion, nothing changed, like you insinuate. Scientists that went to the press pre-Harper were probably given the same angry chats behind closed doors. But once it became written policy, it became very easy to attack.
Pure conjecture. Pushing my personal ideology - which is "Every single person, including Steven Harper, is a good person at heart and works with the best intentions in mind."
|
Well, I guess if it's your opinion that's fine. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
My opinion flows along the lines of at least circumstantial evidence, rather than no evidence at all. Harper is pro O&G (pro is probably the wrong word, lets say O&G obsessed) and didn't like the info coming out about global warming and environmental destruction. Gag orders were issued, info was hidden, jobs were lost. A person like you would accuse me (and many others, cause it appears to be a more popular opinion than your own) of taking leaps here, but circumstantially it makes a heck of a lot more sense than just, 'it probably was a private policy before, it just became public policy.' The fact was, it WASN'T a problem before, so your taking a bigger leap than I. It also explains a lot of the funding he chose to do or cut.
As for him being a bad man or not doing his best, I don't think he is a bad man, obviously he was doing what he felt was right. But I do think he is an egotistical man who became increasingly unable to work with others or see outside of his own limited vision. I think he lacked the vision of the bigger picture, both economically and environmentally, and is unable to see past his own answers or to the future outside of ten years. I think he got caught up in his own ambitions and his vision of Canada rather than our collective vision. I think he was willfully ignorant on many issues of science, and willfully ignorant on many desires of the electorate. I think he purposefully degraded democracy and transparency to try and aid his vision.
If he truly thought what he was doing was right for Canada, then perhaps you can't call him bad. On the other hand, people do have a lot of justifications for doing horrible things, believing themselves the only one who knows the truth, or that they are doing it for the greater good. If one is purposefully deceitful, should it matter if they think they are working for the greater good? A lot of criminals or 'bad men' would be guilt free is this was true.