Canadian Polemic

Westcoast medicare innovation on the way?

2006-02-14T22:54:00.000-08:00

Right, so first of all, apologies for not having written anything in a while - something like this is easy to lose in the shuffle when you have so much else going on. Essay writing, discussions to organize, people to talk to, etc. At any rate, it's time to get back cracking at this blog thing.

Apparently there was a Speech from the Throne here in B.C. today. And I thought I was pretty well informed. I guess not. Anyway, I read a bit about it and I like the tone. Especially the bits on health care - the Campbell government is prepared to contradict the Canada Health Act, it seems, in an effort to make medicare more sustainable. "Why are we so quick to condemn any consideration of other systems as a slippery slope to an American-style system that none of us wants?" the speech asks. "Does it really matter to patients where or how they obtain their surgical treatment if it is paid for with public funds?" These are good questions to be asking, and good on Gordon Campbell and his team for being willing to put them forward. The speech proposes a province-wide conversation on health care, and a desire to investigate other, more sustainable models. It also reaffirms the need for public health care, but opens doors to different ways of providing it - this is exactly what's needed. The Canada Health Act has turned into a political tool in Canada, and by whipping it out and promising to defend it tooth and nail, you can paint yourself as the savior of the social programmes that make this country (to a degree) what it is. Paul Martin and Jack Layton, ahem. But it's time to get rid of the dogma surrounding 'defending health care' - yes, it should be accessible to all Canadians, but the B.C. government has hit the nail on the head when they say that it should also be sustainable. We need to be flexible with health care, because I think it's obvious that our current philosophy isn't workable in the long-term. I'll be interested to see what happens in B.C., and kudos again to the B.C. Liberals for taking a risk and posing some good, needed questions. Hopefully we can have a great debate about how best to build a sustainable, accessible health care system.

The One World Scholarship programme, designed to help post-secondary students study in other Pacific Rim nations, is also a great idea - investments in education are wonderful, and I think that facilitating B.C.'s role in the region is also a good idea. Other interesting ideas include community and aboriginal courts to take pressure off of the court system and a more flexible housing strategy for dealing with homelessness. Not sure what those will entail, but they sound like good ideas. Sounds like there's the potential for some neat new ideas in British Columbia - we'll see if Premier Campbell can deliver.

QUEBEC-DATE: Quebec Premier Jean Charest has come out today with a statement along the same lines as the B.C. Throne Speech on Tuesday, promising to look at new ways of guaranteeing accessible, quality health care. Good to hear another province starting to ask some good questions. As we start finding innovations for our public health care system, though, we've got to be careful that we strike a balance and ensure that all Canadians can get the same quality of care. That will be the challenge, to avoid any disparity between public and private elements.

A step back is what is needed

2006-02-05T17:30:00.000-08:00

Things have not progressed well in the cartoon debacle concerning sketches of Mohammed, the Muslim prophet. If anything, that's an understatement. After European newspapers republished a series of caricatures of Mohammed last week, anger has erupted across the Muslim world, culminating most recently in mass protests and torchings of European embassies in the Middle East. According to Islamic law, it's forbidden to make any kind of representation of the prophet, as it's considered idolatry. I guess that things have escalated this week because the European countries involved failed to apologize for the publication of the sketches.

It's pretty sad that things have progressed to where they are now, with burning embassies and calls for the destruction of the European nations. To be clear, the drawings are absolutely offensive - aside from contravening Islamic law, they directly impugn and demean the highest religious figure of the faith. I think that we need to make that clear. That being said, I'm not at all convinced that demanding apologies from European governments and burning their embassies is the best reponse. If anything, it just contributes to whatever stereotypes may already exist. 'Those folks in the Middle East,' some may incorrectly conclude from this event. 'You just can't reason with them. Their response to everything is to take to the streets and call for the death of the West.' And that's very unfortunate.

Like it or not, there is freedom of expression and freedom of the press in most Western countries. But it's to a point. It does depend on the country as to what verges on hate crimes, what is appropriate and what is not. I think that all countries that have those freedoms also have various restrictions on them. I don't know what the case is in Denmark, France and Germany. But I think that an apology from the newspapers would be most appropriate - you've got the right to speak freely, but directly insulting and demeaning the faith of another is just not acceptable. And printing more of the cartoons (as happened in France and Germany) just to prove a point about press freedoms? Childish.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has got it absolutely right: "We all agree that words and deeds that insult or ridicule other religions or cultures do not contribute to mutual understanding. Both freedom of the press ... and freedom of religion are great liberties — those who use them must use them with care." There have been inappropriate actions on both sides - the thoughtless publication of the cartoons in Europe and the burning of embassies and threats of violence in the Middle East - I hope that we can remove the blinders of anger, look at things more rationally and use this as a vehicle to greater understanding of where the line lies between press freedoms and restrictions.

CABINET-DATE: Former Liberal MP and Industry Minister David Emerson has apparently shown up at Rideau Hall this morning to be sworn into the new Cabinet, having defected to the Conservatives! I'm sorry, but having just run as a Liberal, if this isn't a power-grab, I'm not sure what is. Very disappointing, and lowers my impression of Mr Emerson greatly.

Canadians have chosen wisely

2006-01-24T16:30:00.000-08:00

I couldn't really be much more content with the results of yesterday's elections, to be honest. Yes, we have another minority Parliament, perhaps as divided (if not moreso) than its predecessor - but the makeup of the 308 individuals headed to Ottawa to form Canada's 39th Parliament could not be much better for Canada. Let's take a look.

So Paul Martin's Liberals were humbled, and rightfully so, though not crushed, which is important. They will make up a very strong Official Opposition with 103 seats. After spending 13 years in power, many of them without a rudder or exciting policy direction, the LPC now gets a chance to return to Opposition and begin the process of re-energizing. We've been scraping the bottom of the barrel recently, and let's be quite honest - it's time for a break. We now have an exciting leadership campaign shaping up, and Liberals need to ensure that it doesn't turn into a repeat of Martin's coronation in 2003 - that is, that someone like Frank McKenna doesn't end up winning 95% of the vote against one remaining, out-of-the-question candidate. We need a discussion about new ideas, about vision and about leadership. This is a perfect chance to reaffirm what Canadian Liberalism stands for.

Stephen Harper has finally won his election, albeit with a minority mandate. This is a great chance for him to bring some new ideas and perspective to how Canada is governed, and I look forward to some energy and excitement in Ottawa again. He's known for his ability to build consensus, and I hope that he can apply those skills both with regard to Canadian federalism and the business of the House of Commons. As I've said before, I will likely disagree with him on many issues, but I begin his mandate with a positive attitude. I wish him luck and success as he prepares to govern the country. Just keep in mind, Mr Harper, that you are leading a minority, and that this may well be a vote against the Liberals rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of your policies.

The Bloc Quebecois and its leader, Gilles Duceppe, were also humbled last night. Despite the talk of breaching the 50% threshold and wiping out the federalist seat count in the province, they lost three seats and a good 6 or 7 percent of the vote. I would just as soon see the BQ wiped off the Quebec electoral map myself, but this is a step. Another benefit of their drop in the polls is the fact that the CPC won some Quebec seats - a critical factor for the formation of a government. It would be a dangerous situation had the Tories been shut out from the province.

And finally, the Jack Layton's NDP is up by 10 seats or so, making them a more powerful voice in the House of Commons. This is also a good thing - they bring different priorities to the table, and though I would never want them governing, it's important to have their voice heard loud and clear. I was hoping for a second that Layton might be unseated by Liberal candidate Deborah Coyne, but you can't win 'em all. Layton should really lose the whole 'working families' thing - it drives me nuts.

So, all in all, a brilliant election result that I'm very happy with. For a variety of reasons, it appears that it will lead to a more vibrant Canada, and it is a demonstration of the health of Canadian democracy. Canadian voters have, as always, chosen wisely.

LIBDATE: A good piece here by Andrew Coyne on the possibilities these results hold for the Liberals. His thoughts line up pretty much with my own.

The possibilities of a minority government

2006-01-20T18:53:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not talking about Canada. The first results from Iraq's parliamentary elections were published today, giving the combined forces of the Shiites and the Kurds just under the 2/3 majority needed to form a government. They won a combined total of 181 of the legislature's 275 seats. This means that in order for a government to function, these two groups (both of which were oppressed under Saddam Hussein's regime) will have to collaborate with other elected groups, including the Sunnis, who were favoured under Hussein's regime.

Now, whether or not one agrees with the invasion of Iraq (I personally tend to think that the notion of dealing with Mr Hussein was dealt with very poorly), one must concede the value in the country's latest elections. Iraq's nascent democracy certainly isn't perfect, and it cannot be seen as an easy cure for the country's struggles, but I think it's valuable that the democratic experiment is well underway. It's good for people to be voting, it's good for all groups (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) to be represented together in the parliament. Hopefully, the new Iraqi coalition government includes the Sunnis and works as a national unity government - it seems to me that that may help and quiet the insurgency a little. Everyone should be involved in the nature's future, and a coalition government may be the best way to accomplish that. Different interests will be taken into account, and parties may moderate their positions slightly in order to make progress. A friend of mine who hails from Iraq doesn't have much faith in his country's new democracy - I hope that a successful minority government can prove him wrong, and that it doesn't descend into bickering, chaos and new elections. Cross your fingers.

GIVE-ME-A-BREAK-DATE: This is really not a front page story, if a story at all. Now this is a bit of media bias, methinks - shame on the Globe for printing it. Harper's been at it for 6 weeks - so what if he wants the last weekend to be a little quieter?

Dripping with irony

2006-01-19T21:23:00.000-08:00

It's ironic, really. And quite hypocritical. Here we have Paul Martin accusing Stephen Harper of instantiating the Republican Party of Canada through his party's press releases, campaign rhetoric and TV ads - fine, fair enough. Not really a great line of argument, but fine. Now, (and this is the ironic part), he lowers the level of debate in this country by suggesting (without any evidence, mind you) that a Conservative government would stack the Supreme Court of Canada with right-wing ideologues. Doesn't that sound familiar? To the talking points of America's Democratic Party? Absolutely. Martin's argument that since there is a vacancy to be filled, Stephen Harper would use it to slant the court drastically to the right smacks of desperation to me. No evidence, and it's not like the Liberals haven't had their chance to fill a vacancy or two.

These kind of unsubstantiated arguments are pretty disgraceful, and only drag Paul Martin's legacy further through the gutter. And, I think, insult the intelligence of many Canadians. Paul - where are the new ideas and solutions for health care, the military, foreign policy, Canada's cities and crime? That's what Canadians want to hear from you, not this kind of rubbish. It boggles the mind as to why Martin's advisors can't see this.

DISAPPOINTED UPDATE: No, no, no - Stephen Harper has returned to his old Gomery rhetoric in the face of a dip in polling numbers. The positivity was working so well, and he should have spent the last few days of the campaign talking about ideas for the future, not Gomery. Unfortunate.

Canada's incoherent role in the world

2006-01-18T19:34:00.000-08:00

It hasn't really been a big campaign issue, that's for sure, but one of the biggest policy and leadership disappointments in Ottawa (for me at least) over the past few years has been Canadian foreign policy. Or the lack thereof, I suppose. Paul Martin's Liberals have for several years trumpeted their creation of a role of 'pride and influence in the world' for Canada, but haven't delivered. As a matter of fact, it goes back to Jean Chrétien, who spent way more time worrying about domestic issues than international ones. Despite what his supporters may say, refusing to do something (ie. the Iraq war) does not a foreign policy make. A foreign policy can't just be what we don't do. The question is, though, if any of the current leaders can offer anything better.

I should first note that for me, an ideal Canadian foreign policy would be one in which we do not hestitate to stand forward and be vocal about injustice when and where it happens. And further to that, we should be willing to put our money where our mouth is, and volunteer resources, soldiers, logistics or other support to ensure that we can follow through. Canada must act in a way that recognizes both our national interests and the world's human interests - two notions that are not always incompatible. Canada should lead a moral foreign policy - God knows the world needs it.

So has Paul Martin's foreign policy been a success? I would say, quite spectacularly, no. What was Mr Martin's guiding principle in terms of how Canada interacted with the world? Well, he ricocheted from not having any to having too many. His L-20 suggestion, a fundamentally-good idea, was mostly ignored. Despite Ottawa telling us how involved Canada is in Darfur, the violence in that country continues. Ottawa had trouble even standing up to Iran when one of our citizens, Zahra Kazemi was murdered. Canada refused to commit to a timeline for implementing the 0.7% target for foreign aid - a target originally set by Canadians! Some supporters will point to Canada's refusal to stay out of the U.S. missile defence programme and Mr Martin's supposed willingness to stand up to the United States. Again, a foreign policy is not solely what we do not do, and to judge it solely based on that is inappropriate. But also, Mr Martin has needlessly antagonized the United States - that's not standing up, that's just being stupid and trying to gain cheap political points. I fail to be impressed by Martin's foreign policy - though I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

Let's look at what the other parties are offering. Are any of them willing to commit to the moral foreign policy that (I think) Canada and the world both need and deserve? Well, the Liberal platform consists of a lot of repetition of what the Martin government has supposedly done, which isn't really much of a platform. And some of those observations aren't really anything to do with Mr Martin (the fact that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is a Canadian, for example). New ideas include a ban on all space weapons and Pearson Scholarships for international and Canadian students to study multilateralism and international relations - both decent ideas, but not really smacking of much vision. And lacking the moral component, as well.

The Conservative plan is pretty darn vague - the Tories will "articulate Canada's core values [...] on the international stage." OK, great. They'll also advance our interests through foreign aid and let Parliament ratify treaties. Doesn't it already do that? At any rate, not much vision and even fewer concrete ideas for how Canada should act internationally. The New Democrat version is equally uninspiring, on the whole. Pledging to only commit Canadian troops to missions under international organizations seems to me to be rather closed-minded and inflexible, and cleaning up DND dumpsites isn't really foreign policy. Like the other two parties, some interesting ideas, but no coherent vision and no mention of the ethics needed in foreign policy.

It's fairly obvious to me that none of the current parties offer a coherent, viable or moral vision of Canadian foreign policy, which is unfortunate. I want to make it clear, though, that Canada has done good things internationally in the past few years - but we're not doing as much as we could, as well as we could. As a nation, we must formulate something along the lines mentioned above or risk having our influence in the world slip further and further away. Canada can play an important role, a moral and ethical role, but we're not on track to do so at any time in the near future with the leaders that we have. For more great reading on the subject, take a look at Jennifer Welsh's book, At Home in the World.

HAT-TIP: Kudos to The Blog Report over at the CBC for the attention yesterday.

GIMMICK ALERT: WestJet is giving away free flights anywhere in Canada on the day after the election to anyone with the same last name as one of the 5 federal leaders. Anyone willing to look at a quick name change for the sake of a free flight? Congrats to those lucky enough to get it without the bureaucratic rigmarole.

The Toronto situation

2006-01-14T16:00:00.000-08:00

The situation in Toronto just seems to be getting worse and worse - I'm not speaking about Liberal fortunes, mind you, I'm talking about the spate of gun violence that has gripped the city for the past year or so. Once pretty much contained in certain corners of the city, namely up near Jane and Finch, it recently exploded into what is more or less downtown Toronto. I'm talking, of course, about the Boxing Day shooting near the Eaton Centre on Yonge Street. So much for keeping it contained. Since then, there's been more talk from municipal, provincial and federal officials about what to do about the mess, and it's obviously become an election issue, with (current) PM Paul Martin proposing a ban on handguns, among other proposals.

One thing to notice about most of the suggestions, however, is that they deal primarily with wanting to deal with the causes of crime, namely poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, etc. There's also this hesitation in Canadian circles to describe the Toronto violence in any kind of racial terms - it's blatantly discriminatory, some say, to say that this is perpetrated by mostly black gangs. And let's be honest, they continue, it's not their fault - it's ours for not offering them enough opportunities. This position is one that's really hard to argue against for fear of seeming insensitive or outright racist. But I think it's necessary that we consider the problem more completely and avoid simply falling into the chasm of political correctness on default - sometimes, it's more productive to call a spade a spade.

Check out this interview for starters. It's a Maclean's interview with William Bratton, the former police chief of New York City, now heading up L.A.'s police force. "By the time Bratton left the NYPD, murders in New York had fallen to 984 a year, from a high of 2,262 in 1990," the article writes. "During his first two years in Los Angeles, overall crime has dropped 13 per cent, homicides 20 per cent." Impressive, for sure. But how does he achieve these miracles? Not by adopting the same careful, political rhetoric surrounding the issue of crime that exists in Canada. Read some of what he has to say:

You need to talk about [the racial makeup of the gangs]. It's all part of the issue. If it's Jamaican gangs that are committing the crimes, well then, go after the Jamaican gangs. And don't be afraid to go after them because they're black. That's the last thing you need to be concerned with.

Blunt stuff - I bet you that if he said that in Canada, he'd be fired. Oh, wait - Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino was fired. Not sure why, but he did get on the wrong side of the Police Services Board over some similar comments on racial profiling. Here's some more from Bratton - how about this rather insightful point?

When you put too much emphasis on the idea of poverty being the cause of crime, you're as much as saying that just because you are poor or disadvantaged, you are going to resort to crime to get by. And that's a phenomenally racist and insensitive attitude. The vast majority of people who are poor do not resort to crime. A small percentage do. But he is correct that one of the influences on crime is poverty. If you make a city safer, you will create more jobs. In our case in Los Angeles, and in your case in Toronto, you'll create more tourists coming in, who will spend more money, create more jobs and create more tax revenue. But if the place is deemed to be unsafe, you are not going to have that economic benefit.

At any rate, I think we absolutely need to think twice about simply ascribing the crime problem in Toronto to lack of opportunity, as the NDP might. As Bratton points out, that's equally racist. That being said, a balance is needed between some community outreach work and some simple arrests. And if the gangs involved are predominantly black, then target those gangs. It shouldn't matter what colour they are - they're the ones committing the crimes. Finally, again paraphrasing Mr Bratton, it should all come down to individual responsibility - it's no one else's fault but the people who pull the triggers. It seems to me that that's how we should deal with things in Toronto and across the country, but more importantly, we need to feel comfortable talking about it and rethinking our current approach. Otherwise, we're just missing the real problem and things will likely get worse. When people's lives are at risk, perhaps we can put aside the political correctness for once?

IRRELEVANT UPDATE: I see today that Stephen Harper is on the cover of Maclean's - a close up of his eyes looking very shifty, and the headline? The Harper Agenda, which can be found here. Will this torpedo his campaign, as some speculate it did in 2004? Doubt it.

LIBDATE: You know a campaign is finished when you see an article like this.

Why I didn't vote Liberal

2006-01-10T19:04:00.000-08:00

I've discovered that I don't think I would be a very good partisan. Someday I'd like to run for public office, likely under the Liberal banner, but I don't think I'm very good at sticking to party dogma at all costs. This might end up to be problematic. I consider myself a Liberal deep down, but I have no problem with criticizing Liberal policies or statements, or applauding them, for that matter. The same goes for anything coming from the Tories or the NDP. Sometimes I go even further than simply criticism of the Liberals - this election, I've temporarily shifted allegiances in what I see to be the best interests of the country and the party. I hope that none of those who know me disown me because of this, but I cast my ballot last week, and I voted for Stephen Harper's Conservatives. This isn't a fundamental shift in how I see the country - Liberal principles of equality, justice, strong social programmes with responsible fiscal management and a strong central government continue to resound strongly with me. But I'm convinced that a Liberal vote from me isn't the best way to achieve that.

Now, I know what the first response to this will be - trying to convince me that Harper would create a Canada that none of us would recognize (to paraphrase Paul Martin). He would allow rampant two-tier health care - in fact, he would privatize all of our public services. He would essentially turn Canada into the international lapdog of the United States. He would roll back same-sex marriage. He refuses to defend a woman's right to choose. He would eat our children and cute animals like rabbits and puppies. He doesn't love Canada, for goodness' sakes! Now, some of this is true and valid, and some of it is not - I leave you to decide for yourself which is which. The criticisms that are made of Harper along similar lines as above often border on the ad hominem and really do nothing to raise the level of debate. I admit readily that I disagree with some of Harper's policy planks (such as trying some 14-year olds as adults! Gah!), and if he becomes our Prime Minister, I'll likely disagree with lots of what he does. But this brings me to my next point.

Why, some of you are asking, in God's name are you voting for the man if you disagree with him on these policy issues? Well, in all honesty, there's plenty I disagree with policy-wise from each of the leaders, so it's difficult to plant myself firmly in one camp in that regard. For me, it came down to more long-term questions.

Are current Liberal policies towards Quebec viable in the long-term? The question would be easier to answer if there were some coherent ones. Despite Paul Martin's attempts to portray him as Captain Canada as it were, the only man capable of beating back separatism and achieving national unity, his actions haven't much impressed me. And the notion of a 'OUI' referendum win terrifies me to death. I'm not at all a fan of assymetrical federalism - I don't think it's a good idea at all to be signing side deals with each province all the time instead of looking at things from a national perspective. Are there different needs in different provinces? Yes, and everyone should be treated equally in that they get what they need - but I think there should be much more of a focus on national agreements and partnerships than special deals with each province. It just rubs me the wrong way. And it's starting to grate to hear Paul Martin floundering around in Quebec as the Bloc continues to surge. I don't know how best to deal with Quebec, I admit - but surely we can do better than the current Liberal tack in the province. Yes, you point out, but Stephen Harper will be worse. Maybe. But I think we've got to give it a shot and let someone new try. If he can't cut it? Well, that brings me to my next point.

Do we really want more than 13 years of government by one party? The Liberals have been in power since 1993, and they've done a decent job. The slaying of the deficit was impressive and important, and we can now concentrate on new spending priorities. (Note: to those of you who blame Martin for putting the bulk of the weight on the provinces, I'd like to hear your alternative way of getting rid of the massive deficit. It ain't easy.) But 13 years is a long time in office. You start to get tired, you scrape the bottom of the barrel, and yes, let's be honest, some of your members start to feel that sense of entitlement that Harper goes on about. You run out of steam and ideas - that's not good for the country. That's where we are right now, I think. The Martin government has been rather rudderless - but the end of Chretien's last mandate was pretty rudderless, too. It's time for the party to have a bit of a time-out, to examine things from the Opposition benches and to eat some humble pie. The LPC needs to find a new leader with bold new ideas for the country and preferably a vision that the party and the country can really get excited about. We're not going to get that if the Liberals stay in government for any longer.

You know, I'm probably going to disagree with some of what Stephen Harper does. I hope he doesn't screw up the Constitution or Quebec too much, because that would just be disappointing. But you know, it's a chance I'm willing to take. Because the final question is this:

Can my Liberal philosophy be best achieved by another Liberal win? And the answer is no. My Canada is one that includes a strong Quebec and in which all provinces feel respected. It's one with strong social programmes. It's one that leads a principled role on the international stage. And I'm just not convinced that another Liberal win is the best way to achieve that Canada. We need a break to get some new ideas and energy that will resound with other Liberals and with all Canadians. If we need a Conservative government, however temporarily to give us the chance to re-energize so that I can get the Canada I want, I'm willing to take that risk.

VINDICATED UPDATE: Canada's national newspaper tends to agree with me, for the record.

Odds and ends

2006-01-09T16:55:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm back to some slightly less sporadic blogging after a reasonably restful Christmas break back in Ontario. The weather didn't co-operate with me and there wasn't really any snow while I was home, but that's OK - if I can take months at a time of grey and rain out here in BC, I can take it back in the Centre of the Universe, too. See on the side, there? That's the snow that I didn't get this Christmas. Looks like plenty of interesting things have happened politically since I retreated from the blogosphere, too. I won't bother commenting too heavily on it all because it's likely been commented on to death, but suffice it to say that I'm not terribly surprised or disappointed in the latest Tory surge. But I'll get more into that later. Did my civic duty, too, and cast my first ballot. Huzzah - not a terribly enthusing election in which to do it, but what can you do?

I read a fantastic book over the holidays called The Trouble with Islam Today, by Irshad Manji - absolutely should be a required read for anyone interested in understanding our world. I don't think it was as relevant to me as it might have been if I was, say, a Muslim, but it was still interesting. Written as an open letter to Manji's fellow Muslims, the book challenges what she sees as mainstream, modern day Islam's rejection of independent thought. It asks good questions about the role of women in Islamic society, the power of the Arabic influence within Islam and the apparent lack of approval for independent interpretation of the Quran. She particularly takes up the cause for ijtihad, the tradition of independent thinking within Islam that ended at the end of that civilization's Golden Age, and begins looking at ways to revive it. It's engaging to read, and it's undoubtedly bold - Manji has received countless death threats due to her writings. My one concern is that she paints Christianity and Judaism as much more open to independent thought - I can't speak for Judaism, but my experience with Christianity suggests to me that that's not always the case. There are certain quarters of Christianity that are still pretty resistant to anything but a literal interpretation of the Bible. At any rate, our world is shaped in many ways by the power of religion, and this book asks some fundamental questions about one of the largest faiths in the world. Her website has lots of interesting reading on it, as well.

Well, I'm off to watch the exciting leader's debate - expectations are pretty low for me for all of the leaders. Is it really that difficult to have a debate instead of either a shouting match or a series of prepared statements read to the camera? Here's to more of the rather boring, banal pablum we've come to expect from our leaders.

UPDATE: Excellent news - Israel has decided to let Palestinians in East Jerusalem vote in the upcoming elections. Hopefully we'll see more of this kind of direction from Kadima, despite having lost Ariel Sharon.

Wanted: a federalist strategy for Québec

2005-12-11T18:40:00.000-08:00

The new Liberal ads in Quebec certainly don't seem to be going over very well. Apparently, the ads show two hockey teams - one Liberal, and one Bloc - and are designed to paint the BQ as a one-issue party, concerned only with sovereignty. And it also pokes fun at Gilles Duceppe's idea for a Québec hockey team. I haven't actually seen the ads, but the stills found on CTV certainly aren't very flattering - they look cheaply-made and juvenile. And the premise of the spot seems equally stupid to me - I can really imagine too many wavering Québec voters being bowled over by the ads and jumping to the Liberal ship. At any rate, the response to these ads is not going well for the Grits. And it doesn't seem to be getting any better. Over on Cyberpresse, there's an article that notes some anger at the ads coming from one Yvon Leduc, the director-general of the Ligue nationale d'improvisation (National Improvisation League), who argues that the Liberals have stolen the idea for the spots from him and some of his colleagues. I'm not sure if the story has made it into the English press yet but it certainly won't help matters. If anything, it'll give the BQ campaign more traction.

I admit that I'm not really finding the Liberal strategy in Québec to be terribly convincing. Calling it a de facto referendum doesn't seem to me at all to be a good idea, because it's very likely that the BQ will get more than 50% of the vote regardless of the fearmongering. Paul Wells writes well on the subject over here. This, coupled with Paul Martin's unappetizing theories on assymetrical federalism rub me completely the wrong way and leave me believing that the current Liberal team has no idea how to fight Québec separatism and is terrified, preferring instead to fire randomly in all directions until something works. How comforting. That being said, I don't really see anyone nationally (except perhaps Bernard Lord) who has the moral authority or intellectual capacity to make and lead a strong case for the future of Québec within Canada. One of my greatest fears is that Québec will separate from this country - I've told my Québecois friends here at school that countless times. It's so frustrating to see Canada's federalists floundering about with misguided tactics and stupid television ads that will likely lose more votes than they gain.

Oh well. C'est la vie, I suppose. If anyone finds a good federalist strategy for Québec, let me know.

Layton's foreign policy: withdrawal

2005-12-09T07:46:00.000-08:00

Apparently, NDP Leader Jack Layton essentially called today for a halt to the deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, implying that Canada should perhaps withdraw from the mission altogether. Layton suggested that it was an initiative pressed forward by American President George W Bush, and that Canada shouldn't drift into a larger war. I'm not entirely sure what implications this will have for the campaign, but it seems that Layton is trying to make a bit of an Iraq parallel to Afghanistan in his remarks, and is perhaps reading off the same page as some American Democrats. I don't really see how this policy of his will help him make any gains for the NDP, though. It seems to me that Canadians are rather supportive of our presence in Afghanistan, and will continue to be unless casualties get exorbitantly high.

Beyond simply the campaign effects, though, I want to note how much I totally disagree with much of what Layton has said. He suggests that this is a war led by George Bush that Paul Martin is blindly and secretly leading Canadians into. The fact of the matter is that the Afghanistan mission has always been a multilateral one. At first, when the goal was to aid the Northern Alliance and topple the Taliban, the invasion had full UN backing and was endorsed by much of the world as a valid response to 9/11 - and rightly so. After the Taliban fell, the role of foreign troops turned to one of nationbuilding and security, ensuring that Afghanistan does not become a failed state and can make a smooth transition to democracy and a new government. That's why Canadian troops are there, and it's a valid mission that Jack Layton is foolish to undermine. Will there be casualties? Yes, likely - Defence Minister Bill Graham has argued as much for months. But neither that fact nor the fact that the role of Canada is expanding beyond Kandahar to perhaps the more important yet dangerous long-term role of provincial security is reason to get out and call for withdrawal. Canada is playing an important role in the stabilization of a state whose collapse would be catastrophic. Calling for our withdrawal from a multilateral effort by trying to link it to George Bush or claiming that it has been done secretly (also false) is ridiculous - as far as I'm concerned this is one reason why I don't want Jack Layton's hand on the foreign policy rudder. I hope that most Canadians think the same way.

The Sachs plan for ending poverty

2005-12-07T18:58:00.000-08:00

Just finished reading an excellent book by economist Jeffrey Sachs called The End of Poverty - I'd recommend that just about anyone with an interest in political, economic or social justice issues should read it. I'll be honest and say point-blank that a big highlight for me was that it made a persuasive case for the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) without resorting to too much economic jargon that I wouldn't understand. Essentially, Sachs argues that the MDGs are all within reach by 2015, and that furthermore, we have the opportunity to completely eliminate extreme poverty by 2025. That's a pretty ambitious and exciting goal, I think.

There've been many authors and activists and disappointingly-few politicians throughout the last few decades who have pressed for the need to increase foreign aid levels to developing countries (former Canadian PM Lester Pearson was the one who suggested the 0.7% target), but I think that Sachs' book is the most persuasive case so far. His background certainly helps - he's a classically-trained economist, with impeccable credentials at Harvard and Columbia, and he's had much experience advising nations around the world to the end of rebuilding economies. Several years ago, he was appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to design a plan for the implementation of the MDGs. So I think that it's fair to say that in Jeffrey Sachs we have a man who should be taken very seriously.

Systematically, Sachs looks at his past experiences in economic advisory roles, and then turns his focus to the MDGs. He looks at the viability of implementing them, and concludes that not only can rich countries afford to increase their levels of foreign aid, not only will the money be used effectively (rather than be skimmed off by widespread corruption), but it is indeed in the best interests of the rich countries from a national security perspective. Not all aspects of his argument are entirely new, but he eloquently, carefully and clearly presents the material. His work is something that can be understood by many, even those without a background in economics or international finance or development, and that is perhaps its greatest value. In The End of Poverty, we read a persuasive case for ending global poverty from a world-renowned economic luminary. The MDGs are indeed within our grasp - and anyone who doubts that, as well as those who don't, should read Jeffrey Sachs' work.

UPDATE: For those of you who are interested, I'm now on to A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. And on another note, my blogging activity level will likely decrease exponentially from about 16 December to 9 January. During that time, I'll be at home eating good food, enjoying the snow and showing only a cursory interest in the campaign.

UNRELATED UPDATE: This isn't really worth a new post, but I was rather entertained by a phrase in a CTV story regarding the potential income trust leak investigation. According to someone who heard of the income trust decision in advance, "the specifics were vague." Hooray for vague specifics - could that quotation make any less sense?

Layton's smile of the day

2005-12-05T12:52:00.000-08:00

In a move that's sure to have Jack Layton grinning widely today, the Muslim Canadian Congress endorsed the New Democrats in the upcoming election. While the MCC isn't the only organization representing Canada's Muslim communities, I think it's pretty telling to note that it has never before endorsed a political party. The Liberals have long been the party of choice for Canada's immigrants and minority populations, and while I don't think they've lost that support for good, they're perhaps not working as hard to earn it as some of the other parties. I'm not sure how much this'll hurt the Grits in the election - I don't know how prominent the MCC is in the Muslim community, but it's certainly a blow in terms of votes. It could, I suppose, be a watershed moment from which the LPC ceases to be the party of Canada's immigrants - or it could not. Nonetheless, I think it's an interesting development.

As far as I'm concerned, though - and I know it's probably bad politics - political parties shouldn't aim to win over the Muslim, Indo-Canadian, Jewish, female, elderly, Chinese or whatever populations with specific policies and ideas. Enough already with the special interest groups and catering to every single minority and specific request/situation - let's look at the things that are common to all Canadians, and put together a national vision that includes everyone. It's possible, though certainly more challenging than putting together a myriad of different plans for a myriad of different ethnic or demographic groups. And it's better in the long-run.

Spending in the currency of ideas

2005-12-02T18:47:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or have the Conservatives been completely outperforming the Liberals so far this campaign when it comes to new ideas? So far from the Tories, we've heard of several key campaign planks that represent new thinking. As an opening salvo of the campaign, Stephen Harper suggested an independent Director of Public Prosecutions, to be responsible for all federal prosecutions, instead of the Attorney-General. Granted, the Tories then ran into a few problems with questions of encroachment on provincial jurisdiction and some communications issues between Harper and Peter MacKay - but the fact is that it's an idea that's pretty substantially different from recent thinking on the sponsorship mess. As MacKay pointed out, without drastically shifting federal reponsibilty on criminal matters, it wouldn't be able to touch folks involved in the sponsorship scandal, but it's probably not a bad idea, regardless.

After that, it was the pledge to reduce the GST to 5% from its current 7% rate. Arguably good politics but bad economics, this is a policy issue that can be debated at length by the leaders throughout the campaign. Against this new call, the Liberals are stuck to argue for the status quo (that is, more personal income-tax cuts) and to defend the tax that they so vehemently opposed in 1993. It provides some nice contradictory Paul Martin soundbites for the Tories to play with, as well.

Now, the Tories have begun to tackle health care, proposing a Patient Wait Times Guarantee, to ensure that patients can get access to health care in a medically-appropriate period of time. I'm not entirely sure of the feasability of this, but it's a policy idea designed to respond to the Supreme Court Chaoulli decision and, supposedly, to protect public health care yet innovate within it.

I'm not convinced that all of these ideas are necessarily the right way to go for the country, but (and this shows how low we've sunken) at least they're ideas. At least they're not a reaffirmation of the status quo. Even the NDP has suggested plans for helping the auto industry, though I'm spectacularly unconvinced of their efficacity. The Bloc proposed that Quebec hockey teams play on the international level. On the other hand, the Liberals have been reduced to explaining what they've done for the last 12 years, telling people how much money they've thrown at all of the problems and issuing "Fact Check" press releases slamming their opponents. I'm just disappointed in the Liberals, really - there's wonderful liberal ideas that exist, and great liberal thinkers to suggest them. But the current Liberal team seems to be bereft of both. The way this campaign has opened to date (and granted, there's still a good month-and-a-half left) only underscores my conviction that the LPC needs some time on the sidelines to sit back, reflect and come up with some new ideas. You can only govern for so long - sometimes you just need a break.

Regarding the impact this will have on the campaign - I suggested before that the party that ran the most positive campaign would likely see dividends at the polls. Apparently, though, Harper is running into problems in that his positive message is being drowned out by his negative image. It's too early yet to say how it will turn out, but it seems that a positive campaign isn't everything - though it should be. At any rate, it's good to see the Tories moving away from simply repeating Gomery rhetoric and starting to tell Canadians what they'd do with a mandate.

CNN highlights famine in Malawi

2005-12-01T14:14:00.000-08:00

Incredibly enough, today's top headline on CNN.com has nothing to do with American domestic politics. It has nothing to do with the conflict in Iraq. Instead, it's a report on Malawi, a nation in Africa facing heavy famines and continuing to struggle with tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. It's about time that the mainstream news networks saw fit to put some of these critical stories about human existence and the extreme poverty in Africa and other developing nations on their front pages. This is certainly a step in the right direction, though I'm a bit cynical in that I doubt we'll see this kind of thing much more often. At any rate, here's the story, published front and centre on CNN - and rightfully so.

Koinange: Hospital scene like 'hell on earth'
African nation of Malawi battered by AIDS, drought
By Jeff Koinange

BLANTYRE, Malawi (CNN) -- Walking into the highly restricted tuberculosis ward of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Malawi's second city of Blantyre is a lesson in humility.

To enter, you need to fill out a lot of paperwork letting the hospital know that if anything happens to you, it is not liable. This takes a couple of hours.

Once you're cleared, you get a surgeon's mask and a guide and off you go.

Our team did this recently and entered a scene that's the closest thing we've seen to hell on earth.

In bed after bed, the dead and the dying lie side-by-side. Patients stricken by advanced tuberculosis brought on by AIDS cough uncontrollably while relatives try to comfort them.

The faces of the sick are thin, their eyes set deeply in their sockets. Their bones protrude to make them appear deformed. Many are too ill to talk. We are at a loss for words.

This is present-day Malawi, a landlocked central African nation nestled between Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique. The toll taken by TB is just one part of Malawi's multi-dimensional crisis.

This is one of the world's 10 poorest countries; life expectancy is a mere 37 years; two-thirds of the population live on less than a dollar a day; one in six adults is HIV positive, and nearly half the population of 12 million faces starvation in coming months if help doesn't arrive soon.

That's 5 million people, which is half the population of London or New York City.

Malawi is in deep trouble after a fourth straight season of failed rains, which made farmlands and fields bone dry. November was supposed to usher in the rainy season -- but the skies were a clear blue and no clouds are in sight.

The majority of Malawians are subsistence farmers - and they are crying out for help. In the south, once the agricultural heartland, people line up for hours under a scorching sun at food distribution centers run by international nongovernmental organizations. But here, too, rations are fast running out.

Supplies meant to last for four weeks now last half that time because of the growing number of people who need food. Aid workers show us empty warehouses, the result of what they say are empty promises by a donor community fatigued by cries for help from Africa.

They tell us this has been a particularly tough year -- the tsunami, earthquakes, drought, hunger, famine -- one pestilence after another, almost biblical, it seems. At the children's ward of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Blantyre, the beds are filled with the severely malnourished, half of whom are also HIV-positive.

Doctors tell us the hospital is usually the last resort for many desperate mothers. In a country steeped in myth and superstition, mothers would rather take their children to "local" doctors, a way of saying "witch doctors." When this fails, it's a desperate rush to the Queen Elizabeth, but in most cases that's much too late.

Fighting for a breakthrough

2005-11-30T22:40:00.000-08:00

It's likely, that in the crush of news and punditry about the Canadian election and President George W Bush's woes over Iraq, the fact that tomorrow, 1 December, is World AIDS Day 2005 will be forgotten. Each minute that is spent quarreling over the candidacy of Michael Ignatieff or which party leader loves Canada more sees 5 people die of AIDS. That means that the pandemic is claiming over 8 000 lives each day. 40.3 million people are currently living with HIV and AIDS. Nearly 65% of those, or 25.8 million, live in Sub-Saharan Africa. To date, 23.1 million people have died of AIDS - and the numbers keep growing.

The pandemic continues to spin out of control, a consequence largely of lacklustre commitment from the West to deal once and for all with the spread of the disease. Anyone who hasn't already must read Stephen Lewis' recent Massey Lectures, published as Race Against Time, and also found over on the sidebar. Lewis, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN and Ontario NDP Leader, is currently the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. He works tirelessly to raise awareness about the crisis, but with little success - no wonder he's starting to feel a bit burned out.

So tomorrow, on World AIDS Day, think for a moment about some of the statistics I mentioned above. Our partisan jabs about gaffes and electoral bravado seem rather pointless when we look at the larger picture. The pandemic is something that can be beaten - all we need is the collective will. We've got the anti-retroviral drugs to treat AIDS patients, we've got the funds. But little actually happens, and more people die. If we fail to act, the daily death rate of 8 000 people dying of AIDS will only increase and increase and increase. As human beings, how can we stand by and let such a travesty, such an absolutely execrable tragedy continue to happen? Stephen Lewis captures, perhaps, the appropriate sentiments. "The criminal negligence on the part of the Western world has lasted for so long that we’ll never be able to compensate for the deaths that have occurred," he notes. "But you have to continue fighting, and one day, unexpectedly, you break through. That’s what I’m waiting for."

The campaign from yesterday

2005-11-29T17:33:00.000-08:00

The Liberals absolutely don't get it - they're running yesterday's campaign today. Again, they're beginning with the negative scare tactics about Stephen Harper, as shown on their website, where a big headline trumpets that Stephen Harper would roll back Charter rights.

Didn't we hear this last June? Precisely this argument? Well yes, you might answer, yes, we did. Now, it may have won the Liberals some votes late in the campaign last year, but starting off on Day One with a negative tactic from the last campaign and expecting it to earn you votes? Honestly. It's about vision, people, it's got to be about ideas. Calling Stephen Harper nasty names and trying to terrify Canadians into voting for you isn't the way to go about this. I think that the more negativity the Liberals propagate, the better the chances are for a Conservative Government. If the LPC is intending on running the 2004 campaign again and trying to scare Canadians into submission again, they've got another thing coming. I like to think that Canadians are smarter than that.

In other news, why can't the Liberals put together a decent webpage? I like their new design even less than the old one, which didn't really turn my crank, either. The Tories, on the other hand, know how it's done. Their site is snappy, professional and doesn't look as garishly-tabloid-like as the LPC one does.

Another poor tactic from the LPC - suggesting that Harper doesn't love the country as much as their guy does. Give me a break and grow up.

The Ignatieff saga

2005-11-28T12:59:00.000-08:00

And the Ignatieff-as-Liberal-candidate saga continues, today with the reputed scholar and author slamming attempts to discredit him as 'transparent' and describing quotes used from his works to paint him as anti-Ukrainian as out-of-context. This is after earlier Chretien-style attempts to block other candidates from running in the riding and the resignation of the riding's MP, Jean Augustine.

I've mentioned before how much I'd like to see Michael Ignatieff as an elected Liberal MP and Cabinet Minister, and that confidence remains unshaken. He's used to dealing in the currency of ideas, which will be a nice change - it will be interesting to see how he expresses his ideas and viewpoints in Canada in the future. I'm not entirely comfortable with all of them, but we'll have to see.

I think that the Paul Martin team has somewhat fumbled this one, though. Granted, I know they don't want to facilitate the rise of a potential challenge to their authority, but they haven't really accomplished anything here other than show an authoritarian central party leadership stifling, in a word, democracy. It would have been so much better for a variety of purposes to let those other two candidates run in the race properly, without hassle. Ignatieff doesn't get by easily, but he's likely to win - the LPC gets a star candidate and democracy is 100% observed. I like the idea of an Ignatieff candidacy, but I don't like the process to date of how that notion has been approached. Hopefully it'll turn out better than it's started.

Religion as a uniting force

2005-11-27T17:21:00.000-08:00

Last Friday, here at the College, we abolished the notion of classes and instead tackled the topic of world religions - ambitious, yes, but very worthwhile. We started in the morning by dividing ourselves along the lines of international religious groupings, and then by religious groupings at the College. Interestingly, a larger percentage of people calling themselves non-religious here at Pearson than internationally. Then we heard a lecture from a professor about religion in general, and what we mean by it - interesting ideas, but poor presentation, I'm afraid.
After that, I headed off to a presentation on Jewish identity over time and its relationship to modern-day Israel. My friend from Israel noted that to be Jewish was once primarily a religious identity, then ethnic/nationalistic, then racial and now has another facet, that of the Israeli state. We got into an interesting discussion about the system of proportional representation in Israel, recent political events, the birth of Zionism, the demographics of Israel, etc. Interesting fact of the day: did you know that anti-Semitic actually means to be opposed to both the Jewish and Arab races? It's true - those two cultures are the Semitic races. Interesting note. Then it was a workshop on indigenous spirituality, which was equally fascinating. It was from three student perspectives: Inuit (from Canada's North), American Native and Maori (New Zealand). There are a surprising number of similarities between the different cultures, particularly in terms of their respect for the earth. In the afternoon, we had a discussion as a community about religion, one that focussed particularly on extremism within faith and different interpretations of religious texts.

Religion is the driving force in life for several billion people, and it's a shame that there aren't more efforts made to understand the community between different faiths as well as the differences. Most religions, while perhaps expressing it in different ways, share respect for others and the desire for self-improvement. Many of them, it seems to me, have as their goal a better world. And that's absolutely worthwhile - spreading that kind of inter-faith awareness and understanding can only help contribute to a more peaceful world.

The ivory tower complex

2005-11-25T21:33:00.000-08:00

Who on earth could possibly think that pursuing legal action against your chief opponent during an election campaign would be a good idea? Honestly, who's advising the Liberal leadership these days, anyways? Does this make any sense to anyone with any degree of intelligence or common sense?

This comes back to the suggestion I made yesterday about the merits of a positive campaign. It seems so obvious to me that running a clean, positive campaign would win any party plenty of votes and the goodwill of the nation. And yet none of the political advisors of any of the major leaders seem to have any kind of understanding of that notion. Instead, they accuse each other of being mobsters and then threaten to sue when they get insulted. It seems to me as if the ivory tower complex has set in. Some simple solutions for Martin and Harper's handlers:

1. Don't take the other guy to court because he made you cry.
2. Don't worry, be happy - that's what Canadians want to see.
3. Do try and act with more maturity than an 8-year-old.
4. Do treat Canadians like adults, not children.

Let them look on the bright side

2005-11-24T17:16:00.000-08:00

Well, we're almost done suffering through perhaps the most acrimonious and nasty Parliament in the history of the country. Unfortunately, all of the indicators suggest that we're up for another concentrated 5 or 6 weeks of it as Canada's political parties hit the hustings. Their goal? To get elected. How they're going to do it? By trying to convince Canadians that the other guys are worse than they are. It's looking now as if this campaign will be even more negative than the last.

As far as I'm concerned, going negative isn't the way to win the election. If Paul Martin spends his time trying to convince voters that Stephen Harper is a terrifying, right-wing maniac out to dismantle Canada, he's not going to gain any ground. And if Harper continues to speak on and on about government corruption, about how nasty the Liberals are, he's not going to gain any ground. These were the tactics last time around, and let's be honest, very little has changed since June 2004. The Gomery report has been released, yes, but there wasn't much in there that we didn't already know. And polls shortly afterwards suggested that the thinking patterns of Canadians with regard to the scandal were already set mostly in stone. Another negative election will only turn more Canadians away from a national political scene that is increasingly bitter, acrimonious, partisan and personal.

I'll suggest right now that the party that dares to play an above-board campaign, free from negative advertising and based primarily on a vision for Canada's future, will win. It might not hand them a majority, but it'll give them a heck of a lot of votes. My advice is to refuse to sink to the level of the other parties, dismiss the negative advertising as childish and tell Canadians instead where you envision the country after your mandate. Upon what principles will you lead the country? Where will you focus your energies? This is what Canadians want to hear, I'd wager, and I think that whichever party can take heed of that suggestion will see the most gains in the upcoming election. A breath of fresh, positive air would do wonders for any party's poll numbers. Canadians want to look on the bright side - why don't the folks in Ottawa let them?

New risks to Russian civil society

2005-11-23T22:57:00.000-08:00

Russian President Vladimir Putin is at it again. I'm not sure if he's just a misguided democrat or a calculable autocrat. There's news that Russia's lower house today approved a draft bill supported by the Kremlin that would put serious restrictions on all NGOs working in Russia. A key component of the legislation is the restrictions that it puts on foreign NGOs, presumably an effort by Moscow to prevent foreign support for political activity in the country. If foreign NGOs don't register with Russian authorities and subject themselves to random document searches, they'll have to close their offices in the country.

Add this to Putin's recent efforts to shift more power to the Kremlin: he turned state governorships into Kremlin appointments from democratic elections, and the state owns an alarming portion of the country's energy/media industries, to name but a few. Look also at the legal proceedings against former Russian energy magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who many pundits suggest was targetted because of his efforts to play a political role. The majority in Parliament is a party called United Russia that essentially follows the Kremlin line, and Putin was re-elected in 2004 with around 70% of the vote. It doesn't paint a very encouraging picture of a nation purportedly on the path to democracy.

I don't want to suggest categorically that Putin is a tyrant or dictator aiming to return the country to its totalitarian Tsarist/Soviet roots - as I mentioned earlier, it's equally possible that he is merely trying to make the country work as efficiently as possible. But his efforts to date haven't been beneficial for Russian democracy, nor for foreign opinion of Russia. And the proposed new NGO rules will stifle a great deal of good work that is done in the country - and for that, there is no excuse.

Sharon keeps them guessing

2005-11-21T15:15:00.000-08:00

Shocking news from Israel last night - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has resigned from the leadership and the ranks of his ruling Likud Party in order to start a new, more moderate party that'll be called "National Responsibility". Oh, and he took a good 30% of the sitting Likud MKs with him, for good measure. This is totally unprecedented, as far as I can tell - can you imagine the leader of a national party in Canada, a national governing party, up and quitting, starting his own party and calling for early elections? Zowie.

Presumably, Sharon is hoping that his personal popularity will translate into plenty of seats, and therefore an easier time of finding a mandate to pursue further withdrawal efforts and peace attempts with the Palestinians. Whether or not that will happen, though, is another question. I was speaking to one of my friends today, who hails from Israel, and he was noting that what might happen is a consolidation of the hardline right-wing parties (which, if you look here, seems entirely possible), as well as a splitting of the vote on the left (National Responsibility and Labour, among others).

It's hard to say how it'll turn out, but it's certainly turned the Israeli political landscape on its head, and a new poll suggests that 37% of Israelis back Sharon as PM, followed by 22% for Labour Leader Amir Peretz and 15% for the as-of-yet-unnamed Likud leader. The ingredients for a strong, left-wing coalition dedicated to peace are there - whether they will culminate effectively into action is yet to be determined.

Public Works won't hire white males

2005-11-19T12:55:00.000-08:00

I can't quite put into words how outrageous this is. The National Post is reporting that Public Works has temporarily banned the hiring of white men, and that the department is only permitted to hire visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled until at least next March. Are they actually serious? This is as discriminatory and racist as the situation they're trying to avoid! Minister Scott Brison should rescind this backwards proposal immediately and start hiring people based on qualifications, not on color or heritage. Ridiculous.

Thoughts on the election outcome

2005-11-19T12:36:00.000-08:00

Well, we're on the cusp once more of an election campaign, and judging from the analysis and the pre-writ rhetoric, it's on track to be even nastier than the last one. Charming. I imagine that what will likely happen is that the Liberals will win another slim minority, perhaps an even smaller one than they currently have, and we'll be back into another few months or a year of minority government rigmarole and electioneering. Rather than getting into a debate over the likelihood of that outcome, though, I want to write about the alternative outcome that I feel would be much better for Canada and for the LPC: a Conservative government.

I believe fundamentally in the principles and values of the Liberal Party, and volunteered extensively with my local LPC candidate in the 2004 election. I'll likely vote Liberal in this upcoming election, as well - but a Conservative government wouldn't be as bad a thing as many Liberal pundits and activists would like to suggest. A Stephen Harper government would not turn back decades of Liberal accomplishments, and it would be great for Canadian democracy and the long-term prognosis of the success of the LPC.

First of all, regarding what a Conservative government would do in Ottawa. Some partisans cry that he would dismantle public health care, criminalize abortion and otherwise destroy this nation's social fabric along with facilitating the separation of Quebec. I'll deal with these one by one. Regarding health care - think about the fact that Harper would have, at best, a minority government with which to work with, and passing such significant health care reform would be near impossible with all other Opposition parties likely voting against such a plan. And if you want a strong defender of public health care, are you really that enamored with Paul Martin? I know I'm not. On the other hand, we do need a degree of innovation in our health care system - unless we can find billions upon billions of dollars more, it's going to keep declining. Instead of more rhetoric and little action from Paul Martin, why not try something new? Harper likely wouldn't be able to make drastic changes, as I've mentioned, so we'd probably end up with a degree of innovation in health care, which'd be great. On abortion - Harper would have a minority, and he knows that any attempt to move against abortion would torpedo his chances of getting elected ever again. Case closed. On national unity - Harper knows, I think, that to preside over the breakup of the country would be disastrous, and I think he wants a united Canada as much as I do. He might not be an ideal defender of federalism, but look at what we've got right now. Ministers who call PQ Premiers of Quebec "losers", and a PM whose strongest argument for unity is that a sovereign Quebec would not be economically-viable (despite the fact that some of the strongest economies in the world are about that size or smaller)? Not to mention the whole sponsorship cloud that will hover over this Liberal reign until there's an interregnum of sorts. Furthermore, Paul Martin's assymetrical federalism, signing side deals with all of the provinces on different terms, in order to keep the country together? Not my idea of a strong defender of federalism. So I think we can rest assured that a minority Conservative government isn't going to dismantle everything that has been accomplished under Liberal rule - and you know what? A fresh look on the problems of the day from an outsider's perspective isn't necessarily a bad thing.

On Canadian democracy - you know, the same party has been in power since 1993. Consecutive majorities until last year. So many Canadians are becoming disillusioned with a system that continues handing victories to the Liberals. A shake-up would be a good breath of fresh air for a system in which voter turnout is in perpetual decline. A de facto one-party state democracy is no good.

Finally, on the benefits of a Conservative government for the LPC. Yes, Paul Martin would have to go - if you're a big Martin fan, you'll be disappointed with this no matter what. But let's be frank, here - the party is a juggernaut, a massive electoral machine that's been in power for a good 12 years straight, and I think it's fair to say that we're running out of steam. Starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of ideas. There are some members of the party who are starting to play the appropriate roles in a "culture of entitlement". None of that is any good at all. If the LPC wins the election, we get another year or so of Paul Martin, saying anything and everything, wandering all over the map in terms of policy, lacking any grand idea or vision for the country. The country, and Quebec in particular, gets more and more disappointed in a lack of federal leadership. The "culture of entitlement" about which Mr Harper speaks continues to set in.

A Conservative victory gives our party a chance to do some soul-searching and some bloodletting. It gives us a chance to reinvigorate ourselves with a leadership race that's about ideas, a chance to find a candidate who can put the divisions of the Chretien/Martin era behind us. It's a chance to learn from our 12 years in power, and to build a comprehensive and long-term vision for this country's future. This is going to be another election fought on corruption, no doubt - if we come back to the following election with a blueprint for the nation, a new, baggage-less leader and a more humble approach, we can return to the Government with new energy and ideas to put to use to govern the country.

That's why a Conservative victory wouldn't be the end of the world, and would in fact set the stage for better Canadian governance in the future with the hand of the LPC on the rudder.

Higher expectations, John

2005-11-16T13:53:00.000-08:00

Well, apparently John Efford was back at a Cabinet meeting in Ottawa today, for the first time since the spring, looking relaxed and tanned. A valiant attempt to show his value to the Cabinet, I must agree.

Better yet, though, are his comments on recent media coverage regarding his illness: "I don't know why the press has continually, day after day, wanted to talk about my health. I mean I'm not the only person who has a sickness... I'm not the only person who is sick in Canada." No, John, you're not, but you're also a Cabinet Minister and you're supposed to be helping run the country. So I think it's fair to say that Canada's expectations of you should be a little higher than the insurance agent down the street who has also, unfortunately, been struck with a chronic disease.

There's some good thoughts on this matter as well, over at The Sir Robert Bond Papers. The fact of the matter is that as great and as capable a Cabinet minister as John Efford might have been, he hasn't been living up to his obligations for various reasons, most of which beyond his control. It's time for the PM to appoint someone in his place who can actually do the job with greater energy, and for John Efford to take a seat on the backbenches.

Layton and the tax cuts

2005-11-16T07:39:00.000-08:00

The NDP's Jack Layton never ceases to surprise me - only months after forcing the Government to withdraw huge tax cuts in exchange for $4.3-billion in social spending and their support in the House of Commons, he's now actually in favour of a Government motion to implement a set of billion-dollar personal tax cuts. My favourite part was when he denied that his caucus' support for the motion meant that he was supporting tax cuts: "A ways and means motion is a routine vote," Layton told the Globe and Mail. "There isn't even a recorded vote. That is a routine matter."

Jack, if you don't believe in these tax cuts, then vote against them. Enough of the rigmarole, of the game-playing and posturing. Show some political leadership - and your crazy scheme to withdraw confidence in the Government now but have it not take effect until next January doesn't count - by voting against them or explaining to Canadians why you're all of a sudden in favour of tax cuts.

One law for all Ontarians

2005-11-15T15:41:00.000-08:00

Kudos to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and his government for today introducing legislation that would ban all faith-based tribunals in the province. After a report to the government suggested that they allow sharia (Islamic law) as an option for Ontarians, there was a lot of pressure on both sides of the debate for Mr McGuinty. I was glad to read earlier this year that he had made the right decision.

I'm a firm believer in the notion that we need to allow Canadians some degree of flexibility in how they live their lives and how they celebrate their cultures and backgrounds. The American melting pot approach is not for Canada - part of our great strength is our diversity. But we do have to draw a line at some point as to what is fundamentally Canadian and where we stop making concessions. This can be a difficult argument to make for fear of sounding xenophobic, but I think it's an important one.

Particularly regarding the rule of law. As an Ontarian (although one currently living in BC), I was shocked to hear that Mr McGuinty was even considering the idea of having a parallel law system in Ontario for Muslims, and astounded further to hear that there was already something similar for Jewish Ontarians. In my mind, all Ontarians should be treated the same way under secular, Ontarian law. If you're Muslim or if you're Jewish or if you're Christian, you get treated the same way. That's how it should be - rights to religious expression stop at a point. I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know for sure, but it seems to me that there'd be a case to be made for parallel faith-based tribunals to be unconstitutional.

I'd like to again reiterate that simply because I don't believe that all aspects of Canadian society are up for negotiation by newcomers doesn't mean that I have anything against immigration or the Canadian mosaic. Far from it - as I've said earlier, our diversity is our strength. But a line must be drawn at some point.

At any rate, I think that Dalton has made the right decision - though it may anger some, the fact of the matter is that it draws a line in the sand and rejects the notion that Canadian rule of law can be applied differently based on your creed. Bravo, Dalton.

Chirac's speech: redux

2005-11-14T17:28:00.000-08:00

Well, it didn't go quite as far as I would have liked, but French President Jacques Chirac's speech today was pretty much along the lines of what I proposed last week. Again, I apologize if you can't speak French - I can't find his speech in English. Essentially, Chirac has defended his government's actions to date, noting that everyone should obey the rules and that the rule of law must be enforced, but also that a united France is a stronger France, and that as a nation they must stop discrimination. It doesn't go so far as to open a national debate on the question of French identity as I'd suggested, but it's certainly a step.

Advice for the Opposition

2005-11-13T20:58:00.000-08:00

Hopefully, we'll hear from Ralph Goodale tomorrow about the state of Canada's finance - unless, that is, the three-ring circus known as the Opposition doesn't pull a stunt or two and prevent him from doing so. I have to say, all of the recent plans from the Opposition to commandeer the House of Commons, launch filibusters and the like have not gone over well with me. Rather than seeing a principled Opposition, I see one that is grasping at any straw it can find to take advantage of current poll numbers and make gains.

The Conservatives in particular would come off looking so much better if they stepped back and let the Government do its work. "We're going to let Ralph Goodale make his economic statement and try and woo taxpayers with their own money," the Tories should say. "We're going to let Paul Martin try and divert attention from the real issues, because we think Canadians are smarter than that and we're not going to sink to that level. If Martin wants an election in April, he can have it. The case for Liberal corruption will be equally strong then, if not more so after Canadians have seen their continued efforts to stay in power."

Alternatively: "This Government is corrupt and has got to go. Consequently, we'll be moving non-confidence tomorrow. See you on the hustings."

But all of this waffling back and forth and games is just no good at all. It's the PM's job to call elections (for the most part), and it's also the Government's job to update Canadians on the country's fiscal position. It might not be very good long-term thinking to use a fiscal update as a campaign platform, but that's just more ammunition for the Tories to use in the campaign. So, my message to the Opposition: stop beating around the bush. Either wait out April and build a stronger case and get some actual policies under your wing besides the fact that you're not the Liberals, or take 'em down now. One or the other.

A letter to a young soldier

2005-11-11T16:02:00.000-08:00

Dear Alec:

I was struck today, watching the majestic red and white of the Canadian flag snap about in the wind atop the flagpole, by a thought that drove home the importance of what you did sixty-one years ago. You didn’t fight under that banner, the crimson stripes on either side of a central maple leaf. It was established by a nation safe from the threat of hatred, extremism, violence and tyranny. It was established by a nation that you helped to build but were never able to see or experience.

I live under that flag – it represents all of the best qualities of a nation that I am proud to call home. I live in a democracy that does not face the threat of war. I am 18 years old, but I am bound for university instead of a front in Europe. I go to a school on the other side of the country, where I live alongside young people from all over the world – England, Japan, America, Germany and more. That notion must seem so foreign to you, a 21-year old frozen forever in the summer of 1944.

Perhaps that is why your sacrifice seems so meaningful.

You committed yourself to the soil of France forever, in defence of a world that you would never know, that you could never anticipate. You put your life at risk to protect the lives, faces and futures of people far away in time and space. You sacrificed all that you had to live for so that I might live the life I do today. It was an act of utmost bravery and generosity, and for that I thank you.

I saw you today. You marched in the parade, your tam on your head and your face stern as steel, carried forward on the mournful tones of the bagpipes. You looked no older than me. And yet you gave up everything.

A grateful grand-nephew thanks you.

One step forward, two steps back

2005-11-10T22:47:00.000-08:00

And the American Senate never fails to disappoint me:

Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.

The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government's treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.

[...]

Mr. Graham said the measure was necessary to eliminate a blizzard of legal claims from prisoners that was tying up Department of Justice resources, and slowing the ability of federal interrogators to glean information from detainees that have been plucked off the battlefields of Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"It is not fair to our troops fighting in the war on terror to be sued in every court in the land by our enemies based on every possible complaint," Mr. Graham said. "We have done nothing today but return to the basics of the law of armed conflict where we are dealing with enemy combatants, not common criminals."

[...]

(Full article found here.)

Do they not realize how backwards this is? I understand the argument that can be made for this for national security reasons, and those grounds certainly seem expedient and appropriate if our blinders limit our sight to the here and now. You know, it probably does make prosecuting the war on terror easier - but limiting these people basic rights under U.S. law? Even if it's not against the letter of international conventions or even the U.S. Constitution (I don't know as I'm no legal scholar), it's certainly against the spirit of many documents. Was nothing learned by the ordeal of the Japanese-Americans interned without basic legal rights during and after the Second World War? Backwards, backwards, backwards.

In other news, kudos to John McCain for his principled stand against the abuse of prisoners - at least someone recognizes that terrorists or not, there's a certain line that developed society shouldn't cross. I'm finding myself more and more encouraged by him and more and more supportive of the idea of a President McCain. But that's still a good 3 years away yet.

Time for Efford's exit

2005-11-10T11:08:00.000-08:00

John Efford has to go, really, I don't think there's any question. The former natural resources minister resigned from that job in September, citing health problems. He hasn't been in Ottawa since the confidence votes in the spring, and yet still holds onto the regional minister job, pulling in an extra cabinet minister's salary. Now, according to a Globe and Mail report found here, he's heading off to Florida, even though he can't make it to Ottawa.

I know that PM Paul Martin is probably just trying to be a nice guy here and be considerate about Mr Efford's health concerns, but there's two good reasons to turf him from Cabinet. First of all, I would think that you'd want a regional minister who's showing a continued commitment to the job and who is actually going to work. I've heard that Mr Efford has been a great representative for his consitutency in the past, and I don't challenge that. But when he can find it in him to fly to Florida but not Ottawa, I think it's time for a change. Secondly, the optics of the situation. It certainly doesn't hinder Stephen Harper's case about a culture of entitlement within the LPC when the PM continues to pay a Liberal MP taxpayer dollars for something that he's not really doing. At worst it smacks of that culture of entitlement, at worst, the PM's incompetence and not realizing when a Minister isn't doing his job.

I'm sure John Efford is a great guy with lots of wonderful qualities - but at this point in time, I'm not convinced that he's demonstrating all of them (granted, for some reasons beyond his control), and the PM needs to put someone new in that position who is able to handle the workload and portfolio effectively. I don't think Canadians will like the idea of paying for Mr Efford's trips to Florida, and Martin shouldn't, either.

The speech that Chirac should give

2005-11-08T12:08:00.000-08:00

Ladies and gentlemen,

For the past twelve days, violence has gripped many neighbourhoods and districts throughout our nation. Thousands of vehicles have been torched and now lie smoldering - thousands of young people have been arrested. Families have been disrupted and French society has been shaken to its core.

I acknowledge today that your government has not responded to this situation adequately in that we have not fully reacted to the roots of the problem. For that, I apologize. Your government will move forward in both protecting the safety and security of all of its citizens in the short-term, and in opening a debate on the concept of the French nation in the long-term.

Some of our actions so far may have seemed draconian to many of you - for that, however, I make no apologies. We have resurrected a law from 1955 in order to enforce curfews across the French Republic, a measure that we hope will curtail the violence and disorder currently plaguing our streets. As the Prime Minister has noted, our response will be firm and just. France is a society based on the rule of law and the security of the person, and it is our responsibility to defend those principles. We will continue to take firm measures to make the streets of Paris, Evreux, Rennes, Dijon and others, safe once more for all of you.

However, my apology lies in the fact that to date, that has been the extent of our response. We have now recognized that more must be done, that we are facing a deep-seated question and challenge to our traditional views of the French nation. It is important that we deal with this question on a grander scale, and I hope that all citizens of this great land will join with me in doing so.

We are a great nation with a great history. We share many successes and many failures, and will continue to do so. We should be united. But despite all of the rhetoric that you have heard for many years on the matter, it is time to admit that our nation is far from unified. We are a nation divided. Our conception of a French identity is no longer relevant to modern French society.

France is a cosmopolitan nation, made up of a wide variety of ethnicities, histories and backgrounds - we must celebrate all of these, and I fear that we are not. I fear that our drive to protect each of our own cultural identities at the expense of all else has led us to where we are today. We must come to understand that the French identity is not solely that of a thirteenth-generation white, Christian, French-speaking man or woman from Dijon. One can be French and Muslim. One can be French and yet of Moroccan heritage. One can be French and speak both our official language as well as Arabic.

It is time for France to confront this question of what it means to be a citizen in this country, a citizen who is respected by all and who is actively engaged in its society. My government will begin investigating this question through a far-reaching dialogue that we will seek to hold with all citizens of this great republic. In the coming days and weeks, we will outline precisely how that dialogue will take place. In the meantime, I encourage those who are rightfully frustrated with the inflexibility of the French identity to lay down their arms and violent acts and join the rest of their fellow countrymen in reinvigorating and modernizing what it means to be French.

This process does not mean that anyone will be diluting or giving up their culture or their identities. It means that we will be collaborating and adding to a greater whole. That sense of great dialectic and discussion is what this republic is all about. I implore all of you to join with me in seriously discussing the questions that have long been ignored: what does it mean to be French? How are we all citizens in different ways of this nation? What kind of similarities do we see in our citizenship?

As a nation, we are divided. But we must be united. We can be united. And that is the more important side to any reaction to this current situation. That is how we will build peace and a stronger French republic.

Thank you.

Harper insults Canada's veterans

2005-11-08T07:35:00.000-08:00

And I've found another reason this morning why Stephen Harper just rubs me completely the wrong way. The Globe is reporting that Harper was overheard criticizing the Remembrance Day poppy. When it wouldn't stay on, he used a small maple leaf pin to keep it attached, and his advisors recommended he remove it. "They only had 80 years to perfect the technology," Harper said, demanding that his entourage get him "a pin that works".

Oh dear - I've heard many rumours and suggestions along the way that Mr Harper can actually get rather mean at times, and this doesn't do anything to lessen that impression. Firstly, why would you say something like that at all, something so disrespectful to the Legion and to our veterans? And secondly, you'd think that as an influential politician, you'd have some savvy to know not to say those kind of things so close to the podium while your mike's still on. Not reassuring at all, Mr Harper.

Choose

2005-11-07T18:07:00.000-08:00

Here's a wonderful poem by the great American poet Carl Sandburg that I find really interesting and evocative. This is the question we should all be asking one another, I suppose.

THE single clenched fist lifted and ready,
Or the open asking hand held out and waiting.
Choose:
For we meet by one or the other.

Executive powers: the impending decision

2005-11-07T17:27:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court of the United States announced today that it would take on a case regarding the Bush administration's use of military tribunals to try foreign terror suspects, primarily in Guantanamo Bay. This is excellent news, because it'll raise a critical issue to one of the highest-levels of debate in the country.

The question of the powers of the executive in wartime is one that has become particularly relevant post 9/11 - there have been calls across the board that the rights of individual citizens are being trampled in the name of collective security and the war on terror. As a matter of fact, Canadian intellectual Michael Ignatieff has written a great book on the question, which I'd recommend reading. But from the Patriot Act to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to the question of the administration's right to use torture, it's come up fairly often.

I don't have nearly enough legal savvy to be able to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, but I think it's a good thing that they've taken on the case and will engage in an intellectual debate on the matter. It'd be great if they came out strongly of the position that the executive's powers are not unlimited, even in wartime - it seems to me to be clear enough that limitless powers are no good. The powers of the executive should certainly be strengthened in times of danger, but there are some lines that we as a society should refuse to cross regardless of the circumstances. Now we wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in - should be interesting.

Taking on the school boards

2005-11-05T20:28:00.000-08:00

For all of you young revolutionaries out there who have always wanted to make change and be treated as an adult in terms of real decision making, you should check out this article from the Toronto Star and get some ideas, perhaps, of how it's done. I'm not entirely sure that having students voting on a school board is the best solution, from the argument that it in essence elevates them above their teachers, but it's certainly a really interesting look at how collectively, change can often be forced. A really interesting read.

The future of the sovereigntist project

2005-11-05T17:22:00.000-08:00

There's an interesting opinion piece found at the website of La Presse, a Francophone Montreal daily - you can get it here, and my apologies if you're not bilingual. Unfortunately for you, it's only in French. I'll do my best to summarize it somewhat.

The author, Philippe Parenteau, uses the space to question the future of the sovereigntist project in Quebec. He notes that in the ten years since the 1995 referendum, the political situation in Quebec has been reasonably static. Rather than moving forward on bold new ideas for the good of all Quebeckers, he argues that the last decade has been spent instead monitoring the sovereignty movement. By focussing on that project, one that pits Anglophones against Francophones, Quebec is losing out economically and socially. The project encompasses all political debate between the left and the right, between Francophones and Anglophones, and allows for an easy dismissal of lower standards - things would be much easier if Quebec was separate.

Parenteau then points to Ontario, where the province's Francophone communities, though dispersed, are well taken care of, and where the province is more or less united. He cites the province's higher living standards, booming economy and attractiveness to young families and immigrants. Compare this to Quebec, he says, where the province is still split between 42-45% sovereigntists and 42-45% federalists. By focussing on that divisive project, Quebec is falling behind and losing out on a chance to really succeed and grow as a province. Isn't it time, he asks again, for Quebeckers to find a new grand project that can unite them?

This kind of proactivity is needed in Quebec, and I hope that these ideas can catch on. Newspapers in the rest of Canada (and around the world) tend to proclaim daily the worrisome scenario of a PQ government in Quebec City calling another referendum on sovereignty, particularly after the revelations of the Gomery Inquiry. It's certainly a valid suggestion, but I tend to agree with Parenteau when he suggests that the continuation of the sovereigntist project in Quebec only continues to divide a population that could be so much stronger together. We've also seen whiffs of this kind of thinking from such figures as former separatist Premier Lucien Bouchard, whose recent manifesto, produced alongside several other Quebec intellectuals, regarding a "Clear-Eyed Vision of Quebec" or "Pour un Quebec lucide" (found here) calls for real ideas that will actually benefit Quebeckers, and a reverse to that province's economic decline. A quote from the manifesto outlines that sentiment:

Unfortunately, at the very moment when we should be radically changing the way they view ourselves and the world around us, the slightest change to the way government functions, a bold project, the most timid call to responsibility or the smallest change to our comfortable habits is met with an angry outcry and objections or, at best, indifference. This outright rejection of change hurts Québec because it runs the risk of turning us into the republic of the status quo, a fossil from the twentieth century.

Hopefully this kind of thinking will catch on across the province, and Quebec can become economically, politically and socially strong - within Canada. Quebec's leaders should put division aside and work for unity and prosperity.

Proper hearings for Alito

2005-11-04T21:49:00.000-08:00

It seems as if the accusations and posturing on American President George W Bush's newest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito have already begun. The President certainly seems to have pacified his conservative base after the Harriet Miers debacle - many of his supporters who were once noting their disillusionment with his Presidency are now singing Judge Alito's praises. Some go so far as to say that Roe v Wade is now on track to being overturned. On the left, we're starting to hear the typical rhetoric and alarm bells ringing, with many grassroots organizations beginning advertising drives and predicting the downfall of America's reasonably secular judicial system should Alito be confirmed.

It's unfortunate that the American system of lobbyists, pundits and legislators have already begun to slide into this type of debate. Using this kind of rhetoric to appeal to emotions and to predict doomsday scenarios does nothing for the institution of Congress, for the Supreme Court, or for Judge Alito. All of the above would be served best by a rational investigation of the Judge's career and qualifications - if he is qualified and if he is committed to interpreting the law strictly, he should be confirmed.

While Harriet Miers' credentials were somewhat in question - though there have been previous Supreme Court justices with no previous experience on the bench - Judge Alito's are certainly not. He has sat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals since 1990, 15 years of experience. Much of his work has been within public prosecution, and he has had his law degree for 30 years. Certainly qualified as a judge and as a legal mind. What is not quite as concrete as yet is his commitment to strictly interpreting the Constitution and refusing to legislate from the bench. This is what must be ascertained from a series of disciplined and respectful Congressional hearings. Everyone has their own political leanings, however strong or weak - but what is critical is how they will let those leanings as well as their religious beliefs and cultural prejudices impact their interpretation of laws that effect an entire nation.

Whether Judge Alito is pro-life or pro-choice seems to me to be irrelevant in this situation. So long as he strictly interprets the law and does not seek to use the Supreme Court as a method of imprinting his own worldview on the country, he should be confirmed with all due haste. What America needs on the Supreme Court is smart legal minds with a wealth of different experiences as a group who will interpret the law properly and strictly. I sincerely hope that Americans can recognize this and forego the lengthy, protracted and emotional debate that the country does not need.

Childish games from the CPC

2005-11-02T21:06:00.000-08:00

I wonder if many other Canadians are getting as tired of Stephen Harper and his Conservative rhetoric on the Gomery inquiry as I am. Their talking points on the matter haven't really changed since they first got a whiff of the scandal - the latest press release on the matter from the CPC war-room states that "the Conservative Party is the only Party who will clean up government, fight waste, mismanagement and corruption." When will they learn that this kind of rhetoric can only go so far - you need actual ideas and policies beyond the fact that you're not the guys currently in power if you want to get elected.

I also find it really interesting that for months, the CPC has been reasonably supportive of Gomery, although they preferred an election before he had finished. Regardless, MPs and spokespeople were noting that the Liberals were the ones trying to shut Gomery down (Chretien's attempts, fair enough), and that he should be allowed to complete his inquiry fully. Great.

But when the Gomery Report completely exonerated Paul Martin, the CPC began to completely disregard the report they had been so anxiously awaiting. Deputy Leader Peter MacKay came out today disagreeing with the Gomery conclusion that Paul Martin knew nothing. "Willful blindness is a pitiful excuse for leadership. You can try to blame it all on Jean Chretien, but [Martin] was in the best position to try to stop what he knew was wrong." Well, Gomery has just completed a lengthy investigation into the matter that the Conservatives are otherwise agreeing with, and Peter MacKay is simply an observer, last I checked - no credibility on his comments here.

I think that Canadians must be getting tired of this kind of rigmarole. It's one thing to argue that the core of the party is rotten, and that it should go for that reason. But to completely disagree with Gomery's assertion that Martin is in the clear and try and pin the dirt on him that way simply looks childish. The CPC still has much to learn, I'm afraid, about political leadership.

Important terror update from Australia

2005-11-01T23:27:00.000-08:00

CNN is reporting that Australian PM John Howard just held a press conference in which he said that his government had received word of a terror threat to the country. Mr Howard gave Australians much-needed information about the threat, noting that "you will understand that there are sensitive operational matters and I cannot and will not go into further detail." Howard also told Australians that "I don't want to overstate the situation, but I don't want to understate it," and finished by arguing that "I can't go into any more detail because if I do I might weaken the capacity of authorities to respond."

Ah yes, more useful information from Mr Howard that will help Australians to respond to this latest threat and that will really impact their daily lives. If all you're going to say is that you can't say anything, and that you don't want to make too much of a deal of it, but you don't want to forget about it and again, you really can't say anything, why say anything at all, really? Some common sense here would be much appreciated.

Some good news for once

2005-11-01T14:30:00.000-08:00

It seems there's cause for a bit more hope this afternoon, regarding the situation on the Korean peninsula. According to the New York Times, the two Koreas will be competing together as one nation at the 2006 Asian Games and at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Apparently they've been trying to do this for many years, but things have never really gotten off the ground.

Personally, I think this is great news for the region. This kind of co-operation can only be good news, really. Add this to recent successes in the multilateral nuclear proliferation talks, and a pretty positive scenario is painted. Granted, there's still a long way to go, but these good developments generally tend to go unreported in favour of the more negative ones - see recent coverage of Syria. Perhaps one day in the near future, we'll see a unified Korea - it may seem like an unrealistic pipe dream to some, but we need some hope in this world, don't we?

How predictable

2005-11-01T07:52:00.000-08:00

The Paul Martin Liberals are so predictable - the day before the dreaded Gomery Report is to be released, they announce exciting things to draw attention away. Well, actually, they announce huge spending projects that tie up billions more of the Government's purse. This time, it's speculation about a relief plan for the softwood lumber industry. No details, mind you, but the Cabinet is definitely thinking about it, and they thought they'd let us know right at this moment, to keep us informed - they don't know how much it'll be yet, but it's coming. Really. It's really coming. And the other thing was that they'll be spending $3-billion on improving conditions on First Nations reserves in Canada. Not now, mind you, they'll actually spend the money probably later in the month. But they're really thinking about planning on spending that money. They really are.

How predictable - when will it stop? I've certainly stopped being captivated by these sleight of hand tricks - I wonder how many other Canadians have as well.

The city by the bay

2005-10-31T21:36:00.000-08:00

I just had the privilege of spending a week in beautiful San Francisco, California, one of the best cities I've ever visited. I'm pretty picky when it comes to travel, so you can take my gushing here to mean something pretty significant. Sure, it took my over 27 hours to get there and 20 hours to get back, but it was certainly worth it. SF is, for the most part, supremely clean and very safe, and it feels very alive - the city pulses beneath your feet.

I stayed with a friend in the Presidio, a wonderful national park found west of downtown that spawns the Golden Gate Bridge. A group of about 6 of us (give or take, depending on schedules) walked all over the Bay Area for days on end, seeing as much as we possibly could. We walked across the bridge up into Marin County, a pretty easy trek that gave us glorious views of the SF downtown area - mind you, it's often foggy, so you have to be lucky to get a fog-free day. We also saw Fisherman's Wharf, that tremendous tourist-haven on the north shore of the city, chuckling to ourselves at the hordes of people interested in spending $4 on a Coke and $10 on a bowl of chowder - no thanks.

We went into the Mission, exploring its streets that felt so much more lived-in and gritty than other parts of the city. We dove into Chinatown, taking in the smells of the pork buns in the bakeries and searching desperately for a silk kimono bathrobe for a friend - which we didn't find. We wandered through the Castro, the city's gay pride district right before Halloween, taking in the multitude of costumes and personalities. We ventured down Haight Street, marvelling at the crazy shops and getting some great Thai food. We walked through the Financial District, feeling dwarfed by the office buildings and towers, laughing at the Pacific Stock Exchange that now appears to house an upscale fitness centre. We hit the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the De Young Museum, Alcatraz, the Aquarium, the American Conservatory Theatre, Union Square, the UN Plaza and more. My one note would be to avoid the Aquarium - certainly not worth the $14 you'll pay to get in.

It really is a city of contrasts - granted, all are, but it seemed that the disparities there were much more prevalent. From the stereotypical yet all-too-real wealthy Californian lifestyles of Chestnut Street to the sketchy area of the Mission. From the upscale and ritzy homes near the Marina to the children and young people asking for change in the Haight. Never before have I seen such huge disparities laid so close to one another.

That being said, the city is marvellous, and I'd encourage anyone to visit. The food is great, the people are reasonably friendly, the city is clean and safe, and it feels so alive. Hooray for having all of that plus palm trees and sunshine in the middle of October.

Trudeau and 'embedded journalism'

2005-10-07T16:03:00.000-07:00

On campus today, we were treated to a presentation by Alexandre Trudeau, one of the sons of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Alexandre is a Canadian filmmaker who is known for his style of 'embedded journalism', particularly in locations such as Iraq, Israel, the West Bank, Liberia, and other areas of conflict. He lives with the people of the area, and works to tell their personal stories, in order to convey a different aspect of the situation.

The clips of his documentaries were very interesting, particularly those from Baghdad and Jenin. Sure, we all see the typical footage from these war zones, but the way in which he portays these regions is somehow more powerful. The views from a moving car in Baghdad of burning buildings, abandoned markets and desolate streets are way more effective than the footage we are given from CNN in terms of conveying the true nature of the conflict. He highlighted the need to make these stories in far-off lands personal, to make those human bonds. I also found him to be very articulate (I guess it runs in the family), expressing his opinions very clearly and responding to some rather blunt questions with equal aplomb.
He certainly wasn't as controversial as Ya'acov Brosh, the Israel Consul-General who spoke here several weeks ago, but it was still interesting to hear him speak. I'd encourage anyone to try and see his documentaries, particularly those about Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. They offer a refreshing new look at old news stories - embedded journalism, as it has been termed, is an important way of telling stories that I hope we see more of in the future.

Turkey and an EU rethink

2005-10-05T06:57:00.000-07:00

Luckily, Austria has come down from its high horse and removed its last minute objections to negotiations for Turkish membership in the EU. Now, the negotiations, which lean towards but don't require full Turkish membership down the road, can get going. I know there's a lot of concern in the EU about the notion of admitting a massive, mainly-Muslim state, but those objectors should put that kind of religious fear behind them and look to the future of the EU.

With the admission of Turkey, it's obvious that the notion of the EU is going to have to change. Its borders will then extend beyond traditional Europe, and into the Middle East. Once Turkey has joined, there will be little reason to deny the start of negotiations with a nation such as Russia, which, as a pan-Asian nation, extends as far as the Pacific. The EU will then be forced to critically re-examine its purpose - is it primarily or does it seek to be a predominantly-geographic bloc? Or is it an organization seeking to improve economic standards? Is it an organization dedicated to multilateralism and peace? One that seeks to counterbalance American power? All of the above? I think that should Turkey be granted full membership, the members of the EU will have to recognize that their organization can and must be more than it is. A refusal to retool the organization as more than simply a geographic club will, ultimately, result in its stagnation and potential collapse.

When negotiating with Turkey, however, the EU should not lower their standards. Proceedings towards EU membership can be a unique opportunity for Turkey to drastically-improve human rights standards and democratic governance. The EU should take advantage of this fact, and refuse to admit Turkey until these qualifications are met. If the negotiations take decades, so be it. Turkey can be a strong, democratic, member of the EU based on the rule of law, but it's not quite there yet. Regardless, the issue of Turkey will likely prove to be a turning point for the EU, whether it achieves membership or not.

Why not to Halifax?

2005-10-04T14:17:00.000-07:00

According to the Globe's "highly-placed source", Deputy Tory Leader Peter MacKay will announce later this week that he wants to stay in Ottawa instead of returning to Halifax to run for the Premier's job. In my view, I think he should have pulled up stakes in the nation's capital and headed back to Nova Scotia.

As much as anyone, I'd like to see him replace Stephen Harper as Tory Leader. I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what Harper says, but that being said, he'll probably never be elected. This brings up another conundrum - that of one-party rule, which is also no good. Having MacKay heading up the CPC would present a second party with chances of being elected that would solve both problems.

It seems to me that the benefits of returning to serve as Premier of Nova Scotia would be huge. His experience in governing would be another feather in his cap, and would make his eventual ascent to the Tory Leadership and eventually to 24 Sussex much more likely. Granted, there's the chance that it could go horribly wrong, but politics is just one big gamble. So why not to Halifax?

As it stands now, MacKay will stay in Ottawa under Stephen Harper, leading a wing of the party that is holding less and less influence as time goes on. He'll continue to be subservient to Harper, and unless the big guy screws up royally (which, granted, is entirely possible), MacKay's position will remain stagnant. I'm sure there's a lot of personal considerations that only Mr MacKay is aware of, but I do wish he'd decide to return to Nova Scotia and show Canadians what he can do. I wouldn't mind seeing him in 24 Sussex one day.

On the run

2005-10-03T14:01:00.000-07:00

(AFP/Nicolas Asfouri)

Photos can often speak louder than words, so I thought that every once and a while, I'd post a good photo of a recent news event. This one is of two children in Lapa do Lobo, a Portuguese village 300km north of Lisbon, running away from the flames of a wildfire. Wildfires have been running rampant through northern Portugal and Spain this summer and into the fall, driving many from their homes.

Michaëlle Jean's eloquent words

2005-10-01T17:56:00.000-07:00

I think I've mentioned once or twice before how enamoured I am with Canada's new Governor General, Michaëlle Jean. She's articulate, young, bold, enthusiastic and committed to the promise of this country. She's not old, white, tired, boring or a man. She's representative, I think of the future of Canada, and I'm so glad to have her in Rideau Hall, despite my early misgivings based on her membership in so many different minority groups. For those of you who aren't yet convinced, read some of what she's had to say so far in her term:

[Freedom] has helped create the spirit of adventure that I love above all in this country, this country where each and every one of us is able to participate fully in the ongoing task of building it.

Think about it. To set off for terra incognita with the hope of putting down roots in a new land. To take one’s inspiration from the encounter with the first population of these wide-open spaces and their age-old customs. To open oneself to the entire world, which comes here inspired by the ideal of a society in which the rights of all citizens are equal. Our history speaks powerfully about the freedom to invent a new world, about the courage underlying those remarkable adventures.

We are encouraged to believe that everything is possible in this country and my own adventure represents for me and for others a spark of hope that I want kept alive for the greatest number.

Every one of us rekindles in his own way the sense of belonging to this space that we all share, a space that contains the world. Never has it been so urgent to ensure the ethical and ecological integrity of this world for the generations to come. It is a moral obligation.

I pledge that I will go on listening and that my curiosity will remain keen. We are at a turning point in the history of civilization and more than ever before, our future rests on those who are forcing us to imagine the world of tomorrow. Those women and men are today showing us the vast range of what is possible for us. They are etching upon our memories the breadth of our aspirations. They are holding out a mirror that reveals the gap between what we are and what we aspire to be.

The time of the "two solitudes" that for too long described the character of this country is past. [...] Quite the contrary: we must eliminate the spectre of all the solitudes and promote solidarity among all the citizens who make up the Canada of today.

Most of all, I want our young people to be our standard-bearers. I want them to dip into the enormous treasure trove that is Canada. [...] Nothing in today’s society is more disgraceful than the marginalization of some young people who are driven to isolation and despair. We must not tolerate such disparities. After all, our young people are helping to redefine the great family we all belong to, in a world that is less and less impermeable, more and more open. They are the promise of our future and we have a duty to encourage them to join us in this reinvention of the world. We must communicate to them the spirit of adventure that our ancestors, regardless of their origins, have passed on to us. We must give our young people the power and, even more, the desire to realize their full potential. I shall do everything I can to see to that and I invite each and every one of you to help me in this vital task.

Our country is vast and it is blessed with a wealth of colours and the varied music of its tongues and accents. Many have not had the good fortune of measuring its full extent. I know how privileged I am. And knowing it makes me impatient and eager to meet you and to begin the dialogue that I consider to be the founding principle of this country.

I am a mother who worries about the kind of future that awaits her child and all the children on this earth. I care deeply about the founding values that unite us – values that we must defend, build on, and preserve. The most important value, in my eyes, is respect. The Canada I love is the one that defines itself through its respect for others, and through its recognition of each person’s integrity and dignity.

This is all so exciting! [...] I am a woman of action, and I can’t wait to get started.

And peace is possible

2005-10-01T17:33:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the delay on this, but it's been a crazy week. So the Israeli Consul-General to Canada (Toronto and Western Canada), Ya'acov Brosh, came to speak on Monday night and I was going to be moderating the Q and A session afterwards. We knew it was going to be provocative and emotional, and the event certainly lived up to its hype.

So Mr Brosh made his speech, speaking about Israel after its disengagement from the Gaza Strip. As lectures go, it wasn't really that inflammatory. He made some remarks (that I felt were unjustified) that Israel was the only true democracy in the Middle East, but he didn't say anything demeaning really towards Muslims as a group - he was pretty tempered. This is coming from a guy who has argued that "all Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim". He spoke about Israel as a haven for high-tech industry, as a multicultural nation, etc. In all, I guess his lecture was about 30 minutes long - then a girl from Quebec and I went up to the front to moderate and facilitate the Q and A session.

I tell you that moderating that meeting on Monday night was quite possibly the most difficult thing I have ever done in my entire life.

We went with a speaker's list format, writing names down on a piece of paper and going to their questions one by one to keep some semblance of order. Firstly, an Afghani student asked a question, very respectfully, both to Mr Brosh and to the system we were using. Next was a guy from Palestine, who used to be my roommate. Again, he asked a really good question. But Mr Brosh responded to all questions in a really condescending, insulting manner. He would ask for your name so he could respond to you by name, but then insult your intelligence. He didn't deal with the principle behind your point, but he would find a semantic flaw and discuss that instead. He demanded that his questioners tell him their sources, and read him back the exact facts and sentences. He made many arguments without backing them up, such as arguing that the massacre at the Jenin refugee camp never occurred. And I think he was really very disrespectful to our Arab Muslim students as well as anyone who asked a question in general.

So this is what I was dealing with. After Mr Brosh responded to the Palestinian student's question in such a manner, the student tried to follow-up, and rightly so. But I had to cut him off. To allow one follow-up would open the doors to many, many more follow-up questions, turning it into a debate that could go on forever, really, rather than a Q and A. Plus, we had a lengthy speaker's list still waiting. So I told him to sit down. An Iraqi student and one from Holland were sitting next to him, and told him to keep speaking, even though I had said otherwise. So I repeated myself, asking the Palestinian if he would please sit down, we had a long speaker's order to get through. Thankfully, he sat down and did as I said. So that was one crisis averted, I suppose. Unfortunately, after this, he left the auditorium.

Mr Brosh also had this tendency of cutting questioners off in the middle of their questions, challenging premises and sources. I admit that we made a mistake here - we should have asked him earlier in the session to let people ask their questions in full. I was in a difficult position, though, because he was our guest, and I wasn't sure how appropriate it would be to cut him off. Eventually, later in the night, we began to do so, but we should have done this earlier.

Someone (I don't remember who) asked a question before the Iraqi student, and it started to degenerate into follow-ups. I began to cut them off, but our resident citizen of Baghdad looked furiously at me. I don't think I've ever seen him as angry as that night. I put that aside, though, and kept repeating myself and asking this person to stop asking their questions. Eventually, they did. Note that this is compounded by others in the audience demanding that this person be allowed to ask more follow-ups.

Eventually, it got to the Iraqi student, and his questioning turned into an angry exchange back and forth between Mr Brosh. Mr Brosh was encouraging it, as well, which didn't help. This was dicey - I kept asking the student to get to a point, to a question, which eventually he did. After his question, though, he and essentially the rest of the Arab students got up and left.

The last question that I remember was from a Norweigan student, who spent her summer service volunteering with a service organization in Palestine. She was very frustrated through the whole meeting and was pleased to be able to ask her question, which was about Israeli violation of UN resolutions. She had a copy of the resolutions in question, published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and as she asked her questions, she stepped closer and closer to the podium (which had me a little tense), finally tossing the resolution onto the podium and telling him to do the source analysis. Yikes. Again, more follow-ups that I eventually cut off.

So we finally decided to end the meeting, after looks to one of the organizers, who came down to the front and did the brute work of ending the whole thing for us. After it finished, Mr Brosh handed me the two books that Israel had given to our library, and I was absolutely exhausted. Mr Brosh went off with his RCMP security detail. It was quite a night, and very frustrating for me. I had agreed 100% with what they were saying, but I needed to keep things rolling. It was my job. The Palestinian student told me that I hadn't let him defend his country - ouch.

On Tuesday night, we had a presentation from the other perspective, the Palestinian perspective. Very worthwhile. I was so impressed by the students from Israel and the Middle East - I think that there is hope for peace. One of the Israeli students made a speech more powerful than any other I have ever heard. It was infused with more emotion, character and passion than anything else. He spoke about his need to serve in the military, but how he would not be happy about it. He told us about his powerful desire for peace, and how his urge to build that peace was one of his key reasons for applying to my school, which focusses its education on international understanding and peacebuilding. After he spoke and the Palestinian student responded, I was reminded of how privileged I was to be there. And I'm even more committed now than before that peace, as represented in the Japanese calligraphy above, is possible.

Roller coaster prices at the pumps

2005-09-22T13:53:00.000-07:00

And you thought gas was already expensive? According to the Globe and Mail, two stations in Stratford, Ontario opened on Tuesday charging $2.24 a litre, although their prices dropped later in the day to under $1. Just after 3PM EDT, a station in Barrie, Ontario was reportedly charging $1.99. Other service stations in that southern Ontario city were charging less.

Now, I understand that gas prices are going to go up, and I understand that recent damage to refineries in the Gulf is going to have an impact. But I think that there certainly is some possibility of gouging, particularly when you have prices doubling overnight to over $2 and then plummetting back down again later in the day. This is getting ridiculous, really. It's time for the federal government (or the provinces, if Ottawa won't do it) to get involved and figure out what's going on. Some will argue that Ottawa should be spending its time on other things, but really, anything is an improvement from months of insults about the sponsorship programme. And it has to be admitted that these gas price fluctuations are getting out of hand. Let's have some leadership from Ottawa on national energy needs and on gas prices.

Genocide: a problem from hell

2005-09-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

The words 'never again' are central to the vocabulary of modern political leaders when they speak of genocide. However, as we all know, those words never quite ring true. It does keep happening again. The Holocaust. Cambodia. Bosnia. Rwanda. Srebrenica. Kosovo. Darfur. Samantha Power, who is a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, has recently released a book called A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide that carefully examines the history of genocide in the 20th century.

The book's conclusion does not so much propose new arguments as for why genocide continues to happen, but lays out a strong, powerful, unassailable case in favour of the notion that major powers have had all of the information necessary but have lacked the willpower to stop genocide. The book offers a great look into the US State Department, examining the role of dissenters within that organization, putting together a comprehensive picture of policy development, and also looks at Presidential involvement. It also examines the history of fighting genocide in the world, stretching back to roughly 1917, when the Armenian genocide was taking place. The fact that genocide is today an internationally-punishable crime is thanks mostly to a Polish Jew named Raphael Lemkin, who fought to have the word (his invention)included in international legalese.

All in all, it's a fascinating read that devastates very comprehensively the claim that the major powers simply didn't know about genocide while it was in progress. Power proves very clearly that it was the willpower from top officials that was lacking. It's a particularly useful read in the wake of the UN's recent acceptance of the notion that the world has a 'responsibility to protect', offering a good overview of the history of genocide in the 20th century.

Confirming John Roberts

2005-09-21T04:41:00.000-07:00

So, the Democrats have blown it again:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid announced his opposition to Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts on Tuesday, voicing doubts about Roberts' commitment to civil rights and accusing the Bush administration of stonewalling requests for documents that might shed light on his views. (CNN.com)

No, no, no. I understand that John Roberts isn't the kind of justice that the Democrats would have nominated, but simply because they disagree isn't any reason to vote against him, in my view. Mr Roberts didn't tell us as much as we might have liked in his nomination hearings, but I'm rather convinced that he's not an ideologue and will not seek to impose his personal views on the nation from the bench. He's a very talented and knowledgeable lawyer, and the Senate should confirm him without delay. Mr Reid should have endorsed Mr Roberts on those grounds - it would have been better for the Democratic Party and for the United States.

UPDATE: The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, has announced that he'll support the confirmation of John Roberts. Democrats John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have announced their opposition to the confirmation. It's their loss, I suppose.

Intellectual firefights

2005-09-21T04:32:00.000-07:00

Put 200 informed, thoughtful, international students in a room with a controversial Israeli diplomat, and let the intellectual firefight begin. That's what's going to happen next Monday here at Pearson College, when such a man comes here to speak to us (presumably) about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. In the interests of avoiding outside protesters, I'll keep his name to myself for now, but I think it should definitely be interesting.

It's likely, as I've mentioned, that he'll be very one-sided, but I think it should provide a great opportunity to ask some challenging questions. I've already spoken to my Palestinian roommate about it, and I know that he's a little concerned. But I'm confident that if we can keep emotions relatively at bay and be respectful, it should be great. I'm convinced that it's important in any context to listen to other points of view, as skewed or as biased as they might be. Then, it's important to challenge those biases and seek objectivity. Particularly in such a scenario as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I'm looking forward to hearing how an Israeli official sees the situation, and particularly how he will react to thoughtful and pointed questions from students from such places as Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and all over the world. It should be quite a good discussion. I will, of course, post a rundown of the event next Monday for your reading pleasure.

On the right path

2005-09-19T17:42:00.000-07:00

Well, most of the world's newspapers have been fairly uniform in their views on the UN's recent summit on reforming that institution - headline after headline describes the summit as a failure, describing the failure of the world's leaders to achieve anything substantive. 'UN meeting falls short of larger goals', says the Globe and Mail. CNN.com aruges that the UN's reform agenda was 'watered down'. All of these statements are true. In many regards, the summit failed.

The final summit document did not endorse the creation of a more-powerful Human Rights Council.

The final summit document did not come to an acceptable international definition of terrorism.

The final summit document did not deal with Security Council reform.

But while we need to recognize these failings and work to improve our performance in the future, it is also critical that we recognize the successes that were achieved at the UN summit. U.S. President George W Bush, who has not previously shown very much interest in the longevity of the UN, delivered a speech that demonstrated a new commitment to making the UN work. The summit doubled the budget of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, and also committed another $50-billion towards development. The summit supported a Canadian-led notion known as R2P, or the responsibility to protect, the principle that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in situations of genocide or ethnic cleansing. And finally, the summit endorsed the creation of a new Peacebuilding Commission, to help rebuild nation-states recovering from war or insurgency. I rather suspect that Canada will have a large role to play in terms of that new body.

So while it is important to continue to shoot for a bulked-up Human Rights Council, a reformed Security Council, a greater commitment to development and a definition of terrorism, let's not forget that the reforms undertaken at the summit this week are significant, and they are a step in the right direction. At least we're on the right path.

Recognizing that there's a problem

2005-08-14T15:57:00.000-07:00

It's often very nice to think that in Canada, we're free from racism and discrimination. Canada, after all, is one of the most educated nations in the world, and we're known for our peacekeeping efforts around the world. Canadians are stereotypically friendly, generous, kind and tolerant. As an white, English-speaking male, I confess that I don't really run into blatant racism very much. When all the above is taken into consideration, it's easy to see how one might subconsciously put on blinders to discrimination in Canada.

But it's certainly there.

I was speaking to a good friend of mine, who hails from Central Africa. He's currently working on an internship in southwestern Ontario, in a city that's only about an hour-and-a-half away from where I'm living. He was telling me about the intense racial discrimination he's felt since he arrived there earlier this summer, including vandalism, verbal abuse and threats of violence. I was shocked and disturbed - the idealistic part of me wanted to believe that all Canadians were tolerant and accepting.

I imagine that there are many like me, who recognize that racism is a problem, but think that it certainly couldn't exist in Canada. We need to open our eyes a bit more and look past our idealistic views of the nation we call home. It's not without its problems. We have to be aware of these attitudes and actions, and work in our daily lives to correct them. The first step, as so many support groups argue, is recognizing that there is a problem.

Canada, we need to recognize that there is indeed a problem. In total, 459 incidents of anti-Semitism were reported in Canada in 2002, representing an overall increase of more than 60 percent over the previous year, and the highest number of incidents recorded in the 20 years of record keeping by the League for Human Rights. In 2004, there were 857 incidents. That's a problem.

There is some hope, however. Follow the example of Tony Comper, CEO of the Bank of Montreal, and his wife Elizabeth Comper, who together founded an organization called Fighting Anti-Semitism Together. There needs to be more of this.

Racism is a topic that should be foremost in our minds, though often it's shunted aside because perhaps we tire of it, or there is something more exciting to discuss. We have to stop doing that. We have to confront this head-on and make an active effort to stop racism in Canada.

Related Reading
Racism in Canada (Canadian Dimension)
Compers found FAST (Bank of Montreal)

Disappointment to excitement

2005-08-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

First of all, apologies for the tremendous delay since my last post - internet problems have kept me offline for some time. Now, I recognize that the subject of my post is slightly old news by now in our age of lightning-fast media attention spans, but I want to write about Canada's new Governor-General Michaëlle Jean.

I'll admit that at first I was very disappointed in Canadian PM Paul Martin's choice. I for one am very tired of appointments being made for political reasons, where people are appointed or selected simply because of what colour their skin is, where they live or what language they speak best. I recognize that affirmative action programs and the like were once established to right an imbalance, but I think that their time has expired. Regardless, that's a debate for another day. In Ms Jean, I saw the Prime Minister making a blatantly political choice - it was a game of how many various constituencies can we appeal to in one person. As a black, Francophone, Haitian-born woman from Quebec, the PM hit as many nails on the head as is possible. I instinctively was disgusted for this reason alone - break the mold, Mr Prime Minister! Choose someone on merit, not for political considerations! Enough, already!

Then I heard some of her comments to reporters when she was appointed.

I was floored by the candid nature of her words, by her enthusiasm for the country and her commitment to making a difference. She told Canadians that one of Canada's greatest strengths is its capacity to evolve, and that she accepted the position on those grounds. "This is all so exciting," she told us, as she reaffirmed that "I am a woman of action, and I can’t wait to get started." She is reportedly planning to make Canadian youth a centerpiece of her time in Rideau Hall, as well.

I'm convinced that Ms Jean is precisely who we need in Rideau Hall, despite initial misgivings. I think that she'll be able to breathe even more life into it after Adrienne Clarkson so capably reinvigorated. I think that she reflects a new Canada, an excited, enthusiastic Canada that I certainly believe in and don't see nearly enough of on the national level. I hope that she can make Canadians excited about their country again - I have all confidence that she'll be able to do so.

Mr Prime Minister, in Michaëlle Jean you've accomplished a magnificent political feat - congratulations. But you've also done something more in terms of our national identity and our national energies - perhaps this will be your best legacy.

Frank McKenna does Washington well

2005-07-29T17:14:00.000-07:00

We all know that Paul Martin likes to take his time in making decisions, and the appointment of Frank McKenna to be Canada's new Ambassador to the United States was no exception. I wasn't sure about McKenna at first, but you have to give the PM credit for breaking a bit with tradition. Sure, he's a Liberal and no doubt close to Mr Martin - but he's no career diplomat. He's a politician, through and through. It could have gone wonderfully or just atrociously.

I, for one, am very impressed - I think that it's much closer to the former than the latter. I think that McKenna is doing a bang-up job in Washington representing Canada. He's being aggressive in promoting our country's interests but without being abrasive, which is just what we need. Washington is a busy place, and while I do see all the merits of quiet diplomacy, I'm not sure if it's the place for it. He's also being innovative and going outside the diplomatic box, which is also proving useful.

See McKenna's newest initiative, called Connect 2 Canada. The mission? Create a network throughout the United States of Canadian expats, armed with facts about bilateral relations and cross-border commerce. It's not an exclusively original idea on McKenna's part, but it should prove to be very useful in terms of advancing our agenda south of the border.

So kudos to McKenna on a job very well done so far - he's proved his critics wrong and played a big role in turning the Canado-American relationship around. I hope that he keeps it up in the future, and who knows? Perhaps someday we may see his name on a slate for candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Kristof gets it right

2005-07-26T14:38:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Kristof, frequent contributor to the New York Times, has got it absolutely right in his newest column, found here. He talks about how the media must pay more attention to such crises as Darfur, and I really couldn't have said it any better myself. As he writes, instead of focussing page after page on Michael Jackson or Tom Cruise, the media should be looking at the more important global issues of the day. I wrote about this kind of thing a few weeks ago, and this is encouraging to see. Hopefully more individuals in the major media networks take note of this.

Rebuilding in La Belle Province

2005-07-25T15:57:00.000-07:00

Definitely some good news coming out of Quebec tonight for Canadian Liberals - the Globe and Mail article found here writes about a new Decima poll that shows that Liberal decimation in the province might not be quite as severe as it had been. Liberal support is now up to 28%, which is significantly up from earlier numbers.

Granted, it's not the end of the road, by any means. The Bloc still stands at about 50%, which is quite substantial - but not insurmountable. We're not finished the long journey back from our position in the low double-digits, but the trajectory is upwards - and that's great news. Liberal support needs to be reasonably stable and high in Quebec by the time the full Gomery report comes around - it's likely to take another hit once that document comes out. But this is certainly a welcome step.

Well, it's a start

2005-07-21T16:52:00.000-07:00

Glad to see that some American Senators, Republican and (particularly) Democrat, are seeing reason on the Roberts nomination - see the New York Times article here. Certainly, this isn't the end of the road, but we're not hearing the kind of nasty rhetoric that could be cropping up at this point. Congress should keep things civil at the very least, and Democrats should only start pulling things like filibusters if Roberts is demonstratively interested in legislating from the bench. At that point, he'll deserve to be stopped.

A fair hearing for John G Roberts

2005-07-20T18:32:00.000-07:00

There's going to be a lot of writing on John G Roberts, American President George W Bush's nominee for the United States Supreme Court. He'll be lauded by the right and demolished by the left - both sides will come out in what promises to be a rather nasty battle to the death.

And then there's the centrists, like myself.

Now, I will probably disagree with Mr Roberts on most issues - and so will a great many Democrats in the American Senate. But that's not a good enough reason to hold up his nomination and make this contest nastier than it needs to be. The American Supreme Court should be balanced - we need both liberal and conservative voices sitting on its benches.

I hope that both American Republicans and Democrats recognize this, and give Mr Roberts what he deserves - a fair hearing. He's an accomplished member of the legal profession, and agree with him or not, he's certainly qualified. So long as he does not seek to legislate from the bench, he should be confirmed as soon as possible. America needs smart, qualified judges on their highest court - but they don't need aggresive, activist judges who seek to do the job of the President and Congress.

Related Reading
Scrutinizing John Roberts (New York Times)

The collapse of the Spanish federation?

2005-07-18T18:03:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it's not quite that dire, but it's not too far off. I was speaking to my uncle this past weekend, who was visiting from Spain, and he told me briefly about Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's plans to rather significantly alter the Spanish constitution. Apparently, Zapatero is the kind of guy who is always interested in listening and finding a compromise - the kind of federalist who is willing to deal with the Spanish autonomous regions pretty liberally. And by that, I mean he's willing to give these autonomous regions (similar to Canadian provinces) much, much more power. My uncle was saying that some of the autonomous regions are proposing that they set a limit on how many tax dollars they'll send to Madrid (effectively tying the federal government's fiscal hands) and that Zapatero is open to all suggestions.

My uncle also mentioned that, as Europe is a continent of coalitions, the breakdown in Spain is generally the right-wing party (Partido Popular) against all others. This, in turn, puts the Socialists of Zapatero in bed in most of the autonomous regions and nationally with the separatist movements. This adds an entirely different angle to the discussison.

The Spanish constitution was written in 1978, after the fall of dictator Francisco Franco, and has only been amended once, to allow citizens of the EU to stand in all Spanish elections. Several sections of the constitution are protected - this means that if you want to amend them, you must completely rewrite the entire constitution - they're that central to the philosophy of the Spanish regime.

Zapatero wants to amend some of these protected sections, which is a rather significant change. I think that the most dangerous issue here, however, is the possibility that Spain might become even more decentralized under a new Constitution. Madrid has got to remain strong and in control of, at the very least, its pursestrings. A federal government that is subject to the whims of the provinces on something so fundamental as budgeting is not a very strong federal government. If such reforms were to pass, which they may not due to the 3/5 majority needed in each house, I would think that the Spanish federation would be very tenuous indeed.

Zapatero has got to look long-term and preserve the Spanish federation - even if it causes him trouble in the polls, he should reject his alliances with the separatist movements. The political fragmentation of such an important Western European state would be disasterous. If Zapatero cannot push himself to act truly nationally and in the interests of the Spanish state, voters should put fears of terrorism aside and move quickly in the next election to remove him from office and return a government that will, at the very least, preserve Spanish nationhood.

Related Reading
Spanish Constitution of 1978 (Wikipedia)

Shrouds of a normal society

2005-07-13T19:33:00.000-07:00

So I saw War of the Worlds tonight, starring Tom Cruise. It certainly wasn't Academy Award material, but it was thoroughly enjoyable - I sound like Siskel and Ebert. Regardless, it was really entertaining, and did what it was supposed to do as a summer adventure/disaster thriller blockbuster.

I think that the part of the movie that left me the most shaken wasn't the bloodthirsty aliens, nor the vaporization of hundreds of people. It wasn't even the dozens of corpses floating down the river, or the creepy man with the shotgun in the farmhouse basement. It was a scene where Tom Cruise and his daughter are desperately trying to escape the coming onslaught, and they're surrounded by a mob that wants to steal their car - the only working one in New Jersey.

The mob is made up of normal people - folks who might otherwise be surgeons, lawyers, plumbers, you name it. But in that kind of emergency situation, they're looking out for themselves and their loved ones - and they become almost primal as they try to do so. They will do anything to stay alive, or to get one foot further away from potential death. All the shrouds of a normal society are cut away, and people become almost animalistic once more. It's disturbing to see people so devoid of rationality and civility, fighting and killing over the simplest things.

I spoke to someone after about it, wondering almost innocently if people would really act like that in such a situation. "Of course," they replied. "I definitely think people would act like that, trying to protect their families." The more I think about it, the more I agree. Most people seem so normal in day-to-day life, in the context of civilization and society - but how would we act in a situation where there are no rules, where it's everyone for themselves, where our very survival is at stake?

I'm willing to bet that it'd be pretty close to that mob situation - and that's pretty terrifying. I like to think that I'd be rational, that I would continue to be civil and compassionate. But I'm really not sure. I hope that I don't ever have to test out that thought.

Congrats to the Monacans

2005-07-12T18:20:00.000-07:00

Congratulations are in order to the 32 409 people living in Monaco's 1.95 square kilometers - they have a new monarch! Prince Albert took the throne earlier today, and promise to clean up Monaco's international image as a tax haven. "I intend to have ethics as the basis of the behavior of Monaco authorities," he told his subjects after being blessed. "Money and virtue should always go hand in hand."

Good luck, Prince Albert! Best of luck for you and the people of Monaco in the years ahead!

In defence of the GG

2005-07-12T14:43:00.000-07:00

The term of Canada's Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, will expire this September - though PM Paul Martin has already extended it once, so you never really do know. Regardless, the wheels of speculation in the Canadian media are already turning. The Prime Minister will likely choose a new GG in the coming weeks or months - but bandying around more possible names for the position is a waste of time.

Adrienne Clarkson has taken a lot of flak in her six-year tenure as the Queen's representative in Canada, mostly for what some see as an opulent or frivolous lifestyle. Granted, she and her partner John Ralston Saul aren't really the most common folks, but let's think about the purpose of the office. It's the job of the GG to promote Canada abroad, to ensure that Parliament works properly, and to serve as a uniting force for the country. Most of the GG's opponents have slammed her for her many trips around the world, and have called for either drastic cuts in her office's budget or the abolishment of the office completely.

Now again, Adrienne certainly hasn't connected very much with your average Canadian, I'll give you that. You don't see her and John Ralston out for a beer in Flin Flon, Manitoba or playing hockey in Corner Brook, Newfoundland. I'll admit that this is a big weakness - the GG is supposed to bring Canadians together, and I'm not sure that Adrienne does that. This is an important part of the position that the PM should keep in mind when he makes his choice.

But she has done her job in other respects - we may think that her travels are opulent, but she's supposed to promote Canada internationally. Adrienne, a culturally-aware, intelligent and articulate Canadian, is exactly who I want telling the world about how great our country. And Parliament hasn't exactly collapsed on us yet - though some observers would challenge her performance in that regard as well. The office of the Governor General is a ceremonial office, this is true. It's an office that requires money and travelling to function properly, and I'm willing to spend an appropriate amount of money to ensure that our Governor General can do her job with dignity. Of course, we shouldn't go overboard - but in my view, Adrienne hasn't reached that limit. She hasn't done an amazing job as GG, but she has done reasonably well.

In the next GG, I'd like to see someone who can continue to promote Canada effectively abroad (as Adrienne Clarkson has done), but who can also connect with the people of this country and convince them of the office's importance. We need a balance of both in the next occupant of Rideau Hall, to ensure the continuance of our proud traditions and to make them even stronger and more relevant.

Related Reading
Clarkson successor must be named soon, observers say (Globe and Mail)
Governor General of Canada (Rideau Hall)

The list goes on

2005-07-11T14:52:00.000-07:00

This week marked the ten-year anniversary of the massacres in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica. 13 July 1995 - Dutch peacekeepers hand over 5 000 unarmed Muslims to Serbian forces in exchange for 14 Dutch hostages. Days later, reports stream into news agencies, speculating that upwards of 7 000 Muslim men have been slaughtered by Serbian forces. Srebrenica, once a "United Nations Safe Area", is now a synonym for mass murder.

Eleven years ago this April, an estimated 800 000 Rwandan Tutsis were murdered within 100 days, most of them by machete. My friend John, from Rwanda, survived - but most of his family did not. It was a monumental tragedy that the world stood by and offered apologies after the fact - but you already know that.

One would think that after having witnessed so many of these massacres, we would, as a society, be able to prevent them. One would think that having witnessed the way in which these events tear lives and families to shreds, we would be willing to stand forward, speak boldly and end them.

One would think wrong.

Ten years after Srebrenica, eleven after Rwanda, human rights abuses, massacres and acts of violence and hatred continue to pervade the planet. The best-known example is that of the Sudanese Darfur region - the janjaweed militias continue to slaughter thousands of innocent people - but the list goes on. Around the world, leaders and governments make statements that simply don't cut it - they play the diplomatic game, but they don't show the moral leadership that we need.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin:

I remain deeply and personally concerned about the situation in southern Sudan and the crisis in Darfur.

American President George W Bush:

The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than one million people. The US will continue to help relieve suffering, as we demand that the Jinjaweed disarm, and that the Government, Jinjaweed, and Darfur rebels end the violence.

South African President Thabo Mbeki:

We are saying that you have got to work with the Sudanese government, for instance, so that it becomes part of the solution; we've got to work with the rebel movements in Darfur so that they become parties to this solution there, so that the outcome we get is a stable political settlement, an end to the violence, a return of all the people of Darfur to their homes and villages. That's what we've got to do.

[...]

If you denounce, let us say, the government of Sudan as genocidal, what's next? Then don't you have to arrest the president? We’re looking for a solution to the problem, and the solution doesn't lie in making radical statements, not for us as Africans.

In most cases, the world's leaders are afraid to stand up and call something what it truly is - they're afraid to stand up and say that something is wrong. Beyond that, they refuse to take action to back up their words. Instead, they want to talk and debate and discuss and involve all parties - even those who are aiding and abetting murder. Don't get me wrong, dialogue and discussion is certainly important. But there comes a point where we must grit our teeth and act. Britain's Tony Blair perhaps said it best when he told us: "Enough talking - it is now time to do."

Perhaps part of this problem involves the media, who have a tendency of moving on to new topics quickly and leaving old ones in the dust. Can you remember the last newspaper article you read on Darfur? I certainly can't - but the massacres continue.

It's clear to me that this world has lost its moral compass - or at least has forgotten how to follow the directions that it gives. Regardless, on the tenth anniversary of Srebrenica, we should take the opportunity to make a concerted effort to find that voice of conscience again. We need to continue to make this an issue, and make our leaders act. We need to find a way to return the world's moral compass - I'm just not sure how, yet.

Related Reading
Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica (BBC)
Rwanda: How the genocide happened (BBC)
The Wages of Denial (New York Times)

"This rough magic I here abjure"

2005-07-10T18:45:00.000-07:00

I was treated today to a spectacular performance of Shakespeare's The Tempest at the Stratford Festival today, starring William Hutt. Mr Hutt is probably one of the best actors in Canada, and this is the last production of anything that he's ever doing. The show was brilliant, and it reminded me how talented Mr Hutt actually is. He played the lead role of Prospero, and his final soliloquy was a farewell address - good for both the character and for Mr Hutt's last season. The title of this post is one of Prospero's lines in the play.

There's not really any political message to this post at all - suffice it to say that as Canadians, we should be proud of our artistic talent and support it as much as we can. It was an outstanding production, and William Hutt and the Stratford Festival should be proud. Take a look if you're going to be in Southwestern Ontario this summer.

Shaking up Liberal politics

2005-07-10T04:26:00.000-07:00

It seems that there could be a new player on the Canadian Liberal political scene, and not a moment too soon. Speculation has been rife for a while now about Michael Ignatieff's partisan possibilities, and this news article from a few weeks ago confirms it.

Mr Ignatieff is a scholar, academic and author by trade, and is currently heading up the Carr Centre for Human Rights at Harvard University. He's written a number of books about topics such as political ethics, the issue of rights, and more. Now, while he's been in the States for about three decades, he still has good Canadian connections. His father was George Ignatieff, a top Canadian diplomat during the Cold War, and he grew up in Toronto. Speculation reached fever pitch when he delivered a brilliant speech to this spring's federal Liberal convention in Ottawa. In his speech, he outlined his vision of Liberalism, and gave a Trudeauesque reminder of the "fundamentals of Liberal belief". Here's an excerpt from the speech:

As I see it, the Liberal party has three essential purposes: to protect and enhance our national unity, to preserve and defend our national sovereignty, to advance the cause of social justice.

[...]

Liberalism is also a politics of honesty. Being honest means looking ourselves in the mirror and asking tough questions. Can we really say the prosperity of the last thirty years has been equally shared? We know it hasn’t. We know there are more than a million children living in poverty in Canada. We know that these children come from the families of recent immigrants, minorities and aboriginal peoples. A Liberal doesn’t turn away from these facts. Liberals face them and do something about them.

I think that Michael Ignatieff is just what the party and the country needs to be a little reinvigorated. He's not a politician by trade, or a lawyer - he's an academic. He's a man who is paid to deal in ideas. For too long, fresh new ideas have been sorely lacking from the Canadian Liberal scene, and to have a man on the scene who wants to debate and discuss real principles and philosophies on Canada and the world will be tremendously valuable.

Will he find it easy to enter Liberal politics and shoot for the leadership spot (as he's expected to do)? No, he won't. He's an outsider, and he'll have to get adjusted to and deal with the rough and tumble of Canadian politics that folks like Maurizio Bevilacqua and Scott Brison have already figured out. And whether or not Canadians would embrace him as leader is also up in the air. But we've got to try something new after a disappointing, rudderless time under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien - we need some ideas and we need some vision. I think Michael Ignatieff's got it, and I'm glad to support him in his efforts as a Canadian Liberal.

It's not the size that counts

2005-07-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

Much has been made lately about the 0.7% target for foreign aid - it's the principle, first advanced by Canada in 1969, that wealthy nations should set aside 0.7% of their GDP for international aid. It topped the agenda at the recent G8 meetings in Gleneagles, Scotland, and was the source of much debate. Some nations, mainly European ones, have decided to set a timeline as to when they'll finally reach the target. Canada's PM, Paul Martin, has refused to set a timeline, and George W Bush doesn't really seem too enthused, either.

While giving more foreign aid is certainly great, the idea of this magical 0.7% target and timelines for reaching it isn't the way we should be going about helping those parts of the world that need it. Foreign aid is great, but at some point we do have to move past the notion that it will solve all of the developing world's problems.

Untying aid The fact that a huge proportion of aid given from the world's wealthy nations is tied is a problem that should be dealt with right away. Instead of trying to force nations to give more money, we should work to untie more of the aid that they're already giving. Tied aid means that it is given with restrictions - often, it must be used to buy products from the donor country. 60-75 percent of Canadian aid is tied, and an equally large (if not larger) percentage is also tied when we look at countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Japan. This will make a world of difference.

Focus on governance Again, rather than pushing for more aid, we should ensure that the aid we are giving to the developed world is given as a reward for good governance and a commitment to the rule of law. I know this seems callous, as those needy populations under dictators will not receive the same aid as other countries, but we do need to deal with the severe governance problem in parts of Africa. This kind of qualified aid should be linked with a stronger effort internationally to pressure tyrants and despots into retirement. Instead of giving Robert Mugabe $50-million in aid that will likely end up in his own personal pocket, let's give it to Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to use for AIDS work.

If we focus not so much on getting more aid to the developing world, and rather on improving the quality and effectiveness of the aid that we are currently giving, we'll be much better off.

Related Reading
Development: Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says UN (Global Policy Forum)
Tony Blair's Summit Meeting (New York Times)

Inaugural

2005-07-08T19:59:00.000-07:00

If you're reading this, consider yourself welcomed to my new blog, Canadian Polemic. It's going to be an opportunity for me to share my thoughts and hopefully spark some debate on Canadian and international political and cultural issues. Bear with me in that I probably won't be the most faithful blogger - life away from the computer is far too interesting - but I'll try and be interesting and thought-provoking when I do post.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives this definition for a polemic:

polemic: A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.

I certainly enjoy the art of debate, of discussing and arguing about important issues, so this seems like an appropriate descriptor. Hopefully you'll agree, and give me some good opposition to my opinions after I get going.