Bottom lines and shifting goalposts

I noted last night that there's no validity to complaints about the NDP ruling out support for a Con government. But if anybody wants to point out which party's stance on supporting anybody else as a possible government does seem problematic, there's yet more odd spin coming from the Greens:

Hey. Just to correct the record, I never said that. I did say that the process in a minority parliament is to speak with all parties. Greens have a bottom line- "little bit" is not on the table. 1.5 to stay alive. And protect human rights. Period. https://t.co/VPxpdk8HKV

— Elizabeth May (@ElizabethMay) August 23, 2019

Needless to say, the bottom-line demand to "protect human rights" would be far more meaningful if Elizabeth May hadn't previously declared recognition of fundamental rights to be optional among her own candidates. And if the Greens were somehow to end up holding what would be at best a narrow balance of power, it's hard to see a way out for May which doesn't involve breaking some pre-election commitment if negotiations in a minority Parliament end up running into the issues raised by Bill 21, including the possibility of federal intervention.

On the one hand, May could try to whip her members on a subject where she's currently telling them they're free to do as they see fit. But in the process, she'd confirm that any promise of MP independence is illusory. 

Or more likely, she'd end up discarding one of her only two core commitments on the altar of expediency. But if it's easily foreseeable that one of her "bottom lines" will be erased at the first opportunity, progressive voters have every reason for concern about her judgment - especially when she sees supporting the Cons as an option to be left on the table.