"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Thursday, April 29, 2010


In response to this of yesterday, Nottawa makes a visual gag. Ha! Funny!

Unfortunately for that internet traitor and this one alike, Our Dear Expropriation was, in fact, Our Dear Repatriation. As Himself said in announcing the measure in December 2008:
There are numerous charters and licensing agreements which allow Abitibi to operate in this province and those relevant to the natural resources of Newfoundland and Labrador will be repatriated to the province.
He repeated the language last May — perhaps around the same time as We discovered Our Dear Expensive But Innocent Error:
"As a government, we have been determined to ensure that workers impacted by the closure of this mill are protected to the greatest extent possible," said Premier Williams. "Many of these individuals have given a lifetime of service to AbitibiBowater and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect in the face of this closure. Unfortunately, that has not been the case to-date by the company. Working in the best interests of the people of the province, in December of last year our government repatriated certain assets related to this mill as a result of the company having broken their contract to operate in this province. It is now only appropriate and fair that the workers are not left behind and disadvantaged by Abitibi’s decision to close this operation."
And, for the second Throne Speech debate in a row, Dear Leader has used the same language to describe Our Dear Actions:
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Our government has made unprecedented investments in that region from repatriating resource rights to funding severance for the workers, also unprecedented, and we are completely confident that just as Stephenville did, the central region will get through this with the strength and the dignity and the determination that we are known for as a people.
It is thus obviously clear that the expropriation was really a repatriation, and that Dear Leader wasn't just forcibly taking assets from AbitibiBowater, He was taking them from some other place outside the province altogether.

Thus, it is entirely conceivable that AbitibiBowater could have used the same technology that Williams Government did, to move the forests and the Exploits River from one place to another. Faced with this imminent threat, Williams Government was entirely justified in preventing the use of that terraforming technology by whatever legislative sledgehammer is available.

We regret the error.



At 11:07 AM, April 29, 2010 , Blogger Peter said...

"Repatriation" was the word used to describe Trudeau's constitutional changes in the early '80s. It conjured the image of a great scroll being carted across the Atlantic on a creaky old galleon. Still, surely the word can be used in a less-than-literal manner.

At 11:34 AM, April 29, 2010 , Blogger WJM said...

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It was "patriation", because you can't "repatriate" something that wasn't born in country.

At 11:36 AM, April 29, 2010 , Blogger WJM said...

And, no, you cannot use words in anything other than their literal meaning.

See Re Gerry Reid, Kangaroo Court of Dannystan, 2007, where the phrase in question was "let's bankrupt the province".

At 4:19 PM, April 29, 2010 , Blogger Mark said...

Yes - and patriation was quite a literal and accurate description. Prior to this act of "patriation", our constituion was a law in and of a different country.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home