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

Friday, July 23, 2010

Exceptions to the rule

The Western Star opens its Friday editorial:

The disputes between this province and Quebec never seem to end. We never hear much from other neighbouring provinces in Confederation
Going out on a limb here, but could that be because…, with the exception of a water boundary with Nova Scotia, there aren’t any other neighbouring provinces? Wacky, but true!

... but Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador are always at odds over something. It does get tiring.
Indeed it does – though probably not for the reason the editorialist is thinking of. S/he continues:

As usual, instead of sitting down and working out a solution that suits both sides, the two provinces are at odds right from the start and there is little doubt it will be up to a court to settle the standoff….

We always seem to come out on the short end when judges get involved.

Indeed, “we” do.

Well, as long as you forget about what the judges did in the Labrador boundary decision.

Or what the awful judges did in the Canada-France maritime boundary delimitation.

Or what those nefarious judges did in the Laurentian boundary case with Nova Scotia.

But hey, as long as you ignore each case which isn’t consistent with the political mythology, and omit anything which doesn’t conform to your predetermined conclusion, then, sure, editorialist, we always seem to come out on the short end when judges get involved, except in all those other pesky cases when we don’t.



At 9:26 AM, July 24, 2010 , Blogger Geoff Meeker said...

Nicely said. Whenever an editorialist or commentator writes "We always SEEM to..." without offering any substantiation, you can file it under BS.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home