Shapiro Out; What Comes Next for Canada's Parliamentary Ethics Regime?

Today it was revealed that the ethics commissioner, Bernard Shapiro, will be stepping down immediately. My first thought upon reading this was that I had to email one of my former teachers in political science about this exciting news (ethics in government is one of her key areas of interest and expertise). Then I harkened back to what I wrote in November 2005 on the subject of the ethics commissioner as part of Prime Minister Paul Martin's six-pillar plan of democratic reform:

The managerial aspects of government accountability have been under intensely close scrutiny since the explosion of the sponsorship scandal, but the problems date back further. When Auditor General Sheila Fraser tabled a report in 2002 examining questionable government accounting tactics in the gun registry cost sheets, part of her scathing criticism revolved around the fact that officials in the Justice Department failed to carry out any internal audits or provide “value for money” assessments.[i] While the Justice Minister is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of the people and actions undertaken in his department, the public servants in Justice failed to meet their accountability obligations of ensuring that public monies were being wisely spent.
It is with that backdrop Martin proposed the creation of an independent ethics commissioner to report to Parliament. The proposal included numerous measures to ensure the strengthening of ministerial accountability, holding the prime minister and Cabinet to a “higher standard of reporting” via a guide providing “personal directions to the government on democratic reform and integrity.”[ii] Unlike the previous accountability regime, which was a mechanism of the government that reported to the government, Martin’s concept would see a commissioner independently anointed and his reporting would be to all of Parliament, ensuring greater transparency and stronger reporting to prevent the type of backroom tactics that had permitted the wrongdoings perpetrated under the sponsorship program.

. . .

The final pillar of Martin’s democratic reform platform involved the creation of an independent ethics commissioner who would report to all of Parliament. Previously there had been a counselor who report to the prime minister, but the position lacked true independence and accountability. Thus it was a momentous occasion when Martin delivered on his promise very early in his mandate. The powers of the ethics commissioner are wide-ranging, and include authority in areas of conflict of interest between an MPs public and private interests, public disclosure, and ensuring that parliamentarians behave according to the highest standard of ethics. The extent of his authority includes the ability to refer an inquiry to the “proper authorities” (i.e. the RCMP) if there are sufficient grounds to suspect an MP has broken the law.[iii]
The announcement of Bernard Shapiro, former principal at McGill University, was met with initial positive response, but there have been obstacles. During an appearance before Parliament’s Ethics Committee, Shapiro confessed that he was “learning as [he goes] along,” prompting criticisms across the spectrum.[iv] The idea of an ethics commissioner who does not fully understand the concept of ethics is indeed troubling, particularly in the wake of the sponsorship scandal. While all the parties agree that the position of the commissioner is valuable and will go a long way towards restoring accountability and credibility to Parliament, the particular choice of Shapiro leaves room for improvement in the future. Nevertheless, Martin achieved something of great consequence with the creation of the commissioner, and it arguably stands as the greatest achievement in paying down Canada’s democratic deficit.

It appears as though, after a year of pressuring Shapiro to resign, Harper is now at a point where he can act to improve the mechanism of ensuring ethics and accountability in Parliament. It remains to be seen whether he will appoint a replacement or if he will use the opportunity to scrap Martin's ethics regime and implement the measures that were discussed and approved in the Federal Accountability Act. If it is the latter, it will be yet a further diminuition of Martin's legacy as Prime Minister, something which I have no doubt Harper is all too happy to pursue. A thought popped into my head earlier today that he may reach out and select Ed Broadbent for the position, which is something guaranteed to win NDP approval and perhaps encourage some horse-trading on other key components of the Harper agenda. Remember, all Harper needs to get any legislation through Parliament is the agreement of any one of the opposition parties. The next move, and the immediate future of Canada's parliamentary ethics regime, is in the hands of the Prime Minister.

[i] CBC News, “In Depth: Canadian Government – Role of the ethics commissioner,” 10 June 2005. CBC 16 Oct. 2005.
[ii] C.E.S. Franks, “Parliamentarians and the New Code of Ethics,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 28.1 (2005), 16 Oct. 2005
[iii] CBC News Staff, “Ottawa accused of hiding true cost of gun registry,” 4 Dec. 2002. CBC Website. 13 Oct. 2005
[iv] Office of the Prime Minister, “Ethical Conduct,” 22 Dec. 2003, Prime Minister of Canada Website, 13 Oct. 2005

Swords and Shields: The Charter and the Notwithstanding Clause

The latest issue of Policy Options features a revealing essay by Thomas Axworthy on the subject of the notwithstanding clause and the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's a subject that is of great interest for me, and hearing anecdotes from one of the people who was present at the creation is always an interesting and enlightening experience. As you all know, I've got a forthcoming publication in the journal Federal Governance on the subject, so any major pieces on the Charter and the override always have a special interest for me, as it opens up the opportunity for me to utilize my own paper to debate others.

The introductory paragraphs of the piece utilized the theme that provided the impetus for me to write my paper in the first place: Paul Martin's pledge to abolish the use of s.33 at the federal level. Axworthy proceeds from there deeper into 2006, noting that Preston Manning has recently advocated that the federal government take steps to re-legitimize the override so that the taboo surrounding it is weakened and its usage becomes politically salient. As you can well imagine, both Axworthy and I disagree with that particular contention. As the old saying goes, "Rights are rights are rights" and any use by the federal government of s.33 would be acknowledging that it was removing a right from Canadians. There are other means under the law to limit certain behaviours, and recourse to s.33, even as a last resort, would be unpopular and would mitigate my support for the party that initiated it.

Axworthy spends a fair deal of time on the history of notwithstanding clauses in Canada and how the first override came to be. This was something that I didn't spend a whole lot of time discussing in my paper, though I did acknowledge the importance of its inclusion in the 1960 Bill of Rights and its usage by Trudeau in the wake of the FLQ Crisis. The back story to key pieces of legislation can often be as interesting as the legislation itself, and the override's tale fits that description. During the run-up to the passage of the Charter, there was a lot of negotiating between Trudeau, Jean Chretien, his adviser, and the provincial premiers over how to get the Charter passed and entrench rights in Canada in the Constitution. Lots of strategic planning, compromise, and threats of a national referendum are but three of the highlights.

I know that it's not the most interesting subject out there for many people, but when you consider how important and treasured rights are in Canada--often taken for granted--knowing the history of how they came to be guaranteed at the constitutional level is critical in gaining even deeper appreciation. Be sure to check it out, you won't be disappointed.

On Decorum

There's a story in today's Post that brought to mind (again) something that Anna Lou and I were talking about last night: the lack of civility and common respect people have for one another. It's an "interesting" phenomenon to behold people behaving without any regard for the other people in their immediate vicinities, and knowing that it is a microcosm of the general level of disrespect and almost contempt that some in society have for their fellow humans. On a completely unrelated note, there's a classic picture of Stu Hart in the paper too.

What sparked our conversation last night was a particularly rude fellow sitting on the bus cranking out some rap music on his headphones that contained the usual level of profanity and n-bombs. Now, it was late in the day so there weren't any children present to hear such filth, but myself, Anna Lou, and the two other women on the bus didn't really appreciate the young man's choice in music and his desire to listen to it so loudly that everybody else could hear it. I realize that taste is in the eye of the beholder; certainly not everybody would want to hear my cranking of Metallica or Nine Inch Nails or I don't know what all else. But they don't need to worry about overhearing it because I keep the volume at a reasonable level. The person standing beside me probably doesn't want to hear my music, and I take that into consideration, even when the i-Habs-Pod is playing something that everybody loves, like George W. Bush's Weekly Radio Address.

The Internet is, of course, much much worse when it comes to civility and decorum. People are allowed to hide behind the anonymity that their computer screen provides. There is no window into that person's chair, so they feel as though they can say anything they want with impunity, whether discussing Britney Spears or proclaiming that they wouldn't even raise a stink when the Jews start getting rounded up, as a prominent (now former) Blogging Dipper recently did. When someone has the audacity to ask for a little decorum (as I've made the apparent mistake of doing a couple of times), they are immediately accused of seeking to impose censorship and restrict a person's free speech, or that maybe they'd like to live in a country such as China or Iran where they don't need to live in fear of such freedom of expression. I once took a guy to task for his misogyny and his close friendship with a strip club owner as a contributing factor to his dislike of women, and he went off on the most bizarre rant I've ever heard, citing that if he's friends with a doctor he must hate all cancer patients in the world and other such gobbledygook. So not only is decorum out the window, but apparently so is common sense.

I'll admit that I'm far from being the model citizen of public and personal decorum. I swear too much and too casually (which means I'd get in trouble from the Charlottetown high school principal cited in the news story), and often I'd rather listen to my iPod than talk to other people in the office. However, I do make an effort to keep my vices in moderation and I definitely don't celebrate them. Last weekend I had the unfortunate experience of sharing an elevator ride with a group of drunken party animals who were going out to celebrate because one of their number was apparently "accused of being a child molester." Why you would broadcast that to a complete stranger is beyond me. After reaching the bottom, another of the group started urinating on the wall outside the building. Again, no class, no dignity, no decorum. That it was St. Patty's Day was no excuse. A day on the calendar doesn't legitimize inexcusable behaviour, but what if the behaviour is so widely-spread (as we will recall, even urinating on the War Memorial on Canada Day is possible) that it has become de facto legitimized already?

Headlines

There is a lot happening today, so let's get right to it:

The Iranians have taken 15 British naval soldiers hostage. The sailors, who were boarding ships in Iraqi waters, which they have legal cover to do, were directed into Iranian territory and are being held there. Iran did this back in 2004 as well, and only some heavy negotiations and serious hardball prevented any larger crisis from erupting. Interestingly, 48% of respondents at CTV suggest that "military action" against Iran would constitute an appropriate response. I would be happy with some more deep negotiations and, that failing, buzzing Ahmedinejad's house with a couple British fighter planes. Tehran increasingly seems hell-bent on provoking a confrontation with the Anglo-American alliance, and I'm not certain as to why. It's not what would fit under the category of "Iranian national interest," after all.

The U.S. Congress has passed a resolution that would mandate all US forces in Iraq be out of the country by the end of 2008. Because I'm a nerd, I listen to the President's Weekly Radio Address and Tony Snow's press gaggles on my iPod. Therefore, I can pass along word that GWB is going to veto this. Guaranteed. Given that the resolution passed only slimly, and the Democrats don't have total unanimity and can't count on the Republicans to want to tuck America's tail between its legs, there's no hope of it being overridden, either. All the talk about a constitutional crisis is talking-head hot air because the executive is going to win this battle very easily.

Sponsorship is back! The Tories have brought to a life a new entity to handle federal sponsorships, but they're wisely avoiding the use of the word "sponsorship" given that it has a rather tumultuous history in recent Canadian politics. As Kinsella has long been saying, sponsorships work. Cutting the program entirely on his first day of the job, Martin threw out the baby with the bathwater. The Conservatives are wise to bring it back, as promoting Canada is never a bad idea.

Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe says he's not afraid of "little fellows" like Tony Blair and George Bush. The man who has turned this former Commonwealth member into an international pariah is taking a page out of Chavez's book and talking tough, insisting that he'll resist any efforts by the West's Anglo-American partnership to unseat him. Given that there's no such effort on the table, it's the type of second-rate nationalist rhetoric that may be popular at home among his supporters but it makes him look like a dummy to the rest of the world. Even Qaddafi was smart enough to be just a little afraid of Bush & Blair, but this windbag that orders assaults on any and all political opponents is yelling in an echo chamber here.

Have a good weekend!

This Says It All

I'm glad that I screen-captured this, because it was gone from the headlines 20 minutes later:

No kidding eh?

This is Not a Good Idea

A group of prostituted women in Toronto are planning to launch a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court of Canada to get prostitution legalized in order to enhance their personal liberty and security, which they feel are impeded by Canada's current laws. As you can imagine, I do not think that this is a good idea.

It is not the illegality of prostitution that puts women at risk. It is the men, the johns, who do that when they solicit a woman for the purpose of prostitution. The women in this case want the government to "remember that they are human." This is an interesting comment, because in the news story where I first heard of this (link), only once is the word "woman" used and is overshadowed by the usual dehumanizing terms used to describe the people involved: "sex-trade workers" and "prostitute" appear regularly and in more prominent sections. Rather than seeing Ottawa as the problem, they ought to focus on those who seek to procure them, for they are the ones who do not care about the humanity of these women. It is those men who threaten female security through their actions, because prostitution itself is an act of male violence against women.

I have argued in support of the Swedish model for dealing with the problem of prostitution, for it recognizes the act of procuring a woman as an act of violence against her person that threatens her security while not imposing penalties on women who are involved in prostitution, either due to threats, duress, or their own free will. Johns can receive up to 6 months in jail for solicitation, and the results in Sweden in the past 7 years have been demonstrable: bawdy houses have all but disappeared and the overall occurrence of prostitution has declined.

On the television news story, it was mentioned that these women have had their "freedom of expression" curtailed by Ottawa's policy on prostitution. Again, this is not true, and misses the real target. It is those who have created the conditions for these women where they have no other alternative who have limited their ability to express themselves, whether that means the abusive parent or relative, their pimp, or their john(s). To suggest that in Canada there is an "official death penalty" imposed upon prostituted woman is not true. It is certainly not the state which is killing women; it is depraved individuals such as Pickton and his ilk, for they are the ones who are killing these women without even a moment's thought for their own humanity.

It is a situation of terrible personal circumstances and a lack of opportunity that often pushes women into prostitution. Where Ottawa has failed these women is in not providing them with enough resources, such as safe houses and stronger police protection, to avoid prostitution or escape from it. I have no shortage of empathy for women who seek to make their own lives more secure and free, but what this constitutional challenge does is not eradicate the cage that is imposed upon prostituted woman; rather, it would only make the cage larger and make it easier for people to get inside. Freedom, in the only true sense of the word, means being able to live one's life in the manner of their own choosing and pursue our happiness in our own way without infringing upon the right of others to do the same. This challenge to potentially legalize prostitution would make it easier for pimps to violate that basic principle of freedom with greater impunity. It is also an entire level removed from consideration of giving women enough opportunities, training, and resources to pursue their happiness without having to resort to prostitution and sacrifice their own humanity.

Brief Budget Thoughts

My comments on this are going to be pretty quick, if only because there's not a whole of earth-shattering news in the budget to respond to:

• Establishing Canada's western frontier at the Rocky Mountains was a bit of a boo-boo. My trip home in May is not an international flight!
• Dion's immediate reaction was sandbox politics. He cited Duceppe's support as one of his main reasons for opposing it. I don't like Duceppe either, but if he likes certain hockey teams or bands I'm not going to stop liking them simply because he's a fan. Grow up!
• Very little mention of defence spending. I'm sure it's in the document, but it wasn't given much tout during the speech.
• I like the announcement of increasing international aid. We're still a long way from our 4 decades-old pledge to hit 0.7% though.
• Thumbs up to Joe Comuzzi for taking a principled stand. Equal thumbs up to Stephane Dion for enforcing party solidarity. I like free votes on some issues, but the budget isn't one of them.
• Credits are good, levies against gas guzzlers are good. Some people need to learn how credits work, though.
• A couple of people may be wondering why there wasn't the second cut to the GST. Easy: Harper said it would be introduced by the end of his first term, and as I've been saying all along, he has no intention of forcing an election this spring or any time in the next six-to-twelve months.

Shed No Tears for Musharraf

A story in today's Post details the current troubles being experienced by our "ally" and military dictator, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf. As you can imagine, my sympathy runs very low for the leader of a government that doesn't permit elections and enforces sharia law against the women of his country (readers will recall my March 3rd post where I discussed the state-mandated gang rape of a young woman for an offence her brother committed).

The imbroglio surrounding Musharraf intensified with his dismissal of the country's top judge on a whim. You see, dictators have the ability to make a mockery of institutionalized checks & balances and the rule of law in that fashion. He's also dispatched police officers to rough up the judge when on his way to court hearings to determine the legality of Musharraf's action and whether the judge can be fired (given that Musharraf has already installed a replacement, you can imagine how this will all end), and has been leaning on the Pakistani media to ease up on the anti-Musharraf stories in the newspapers.

Which brings us to the broader global problem: the United States has invested a lot in Musharraf to assist them during the War on Terror & Tyranny, to the tune of $10B in the past 5 years. If the concept of sending such funding to a tyrant to advance American aims sounds awfully Cold War-ish to you, you're not alone. It is exactly this type of alliance that undermines American calls for the rise and establishment of democratic rule of law societies around the world. It's fantastic that Pakistan has been helpful in rounding up some al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists--but not all of them and not all of the time--but the benefit gained from that does not cancel out the country's deficiencies in transparency, democracy, liberty, and the rule of law.

The problem in all of this is that if Musharraf is ousted, we don't know who he would be replaced with. Many in Pakistan do not support Musharraf's siding with the United States, and there is a significant level of Islamist fundamentalist sentiment. Many support, silently or otherwise, al Qaeda, and Pakistan was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan during their brutal tyranny over the country. It is entirely possible that he could be replaced with the Pakistani equivalent of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, which would actually be worse than Ahmedinejad because Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. We know that top Pakistani nuclear scientists have already been arrested for attempting to sell nuclear know-how to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

This is where cold realism thrives. Musharraf is odious to the values we seek to advance in the world, but he's less bad than several potential alternatives that would impose strict(er) Islamic law, deny rights even more than presently, and openly support al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal makes it a country of great strategic importance, within the region and globally. American cash has worked to keep the extremists in line and somewhat mollify opponents of Musharraf's US partnership. Any shift in Pakistan could have severely negative effects in Afghanistan, the initial front of the War on Terror and arguably the greatest success to emerge from the American-led policy of regime change. These are not considerations that can be discarded simply to support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. But that doesn't mean we should necessarily shed any tears for the "beginning of the end" for Musharraf.

*Note: this post almost got lost by GooBlogger's gremlins. I blame the snow.

KSM Confesses

I'm hoping that somebody can explain to me why exactly there is so much fuss over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the news today. Apparently he's come clean that he was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, "from A to Z," no less. Yeah, anybody that's been paying attention for the last couple years already knows that. Or is this one of those cases where everybody "knew," but this just seals it for sure?

I remember reading about KSM months ago and was fully aware that he was the man responsible for organizing and plotting the operation that ultimately became known as "the planes operation" amongst his al-Qaeda operative colleagues. It was even initially much grander in scale, as they were plotting to hi-jack at least 10 planes and fly them into buildings in places all across the United States. Information on this can be read in the 9/11 Comission Report and a number of other sources that I provide in the unlikely event anybody would like to read about such a thing.

Now for the dark side of all of this: I read that this information was procured from KSM after he was "waterboarded" by interrogators. If you want to know what waterboarding is, the details of it are not pleasant. It involves creating the sense that the person being waterboarded is drowning, I believe by blindfolding him, setting him at a certain angle, and pouring large amounts of water over his face. It is, in short, a form of torture, and not something that I believe the United States should be practicing as part of its "coercive interrogation" programs to wring information from terrorists. I recall reading that the interrogators were impressed by KSM's ability to withstand the waterboarding for 3-4 minutes before finally confessing. Somewhere out there are lengthy papers by Charles Krauthammer and Michael Ignatieff that discuss whether democracies should use various forms of torture, and either or both of them make reference to waterboarding, that are both fascinating (and often shocking) reads. I will reiterate, because it is important to say these things often and boldly: I do not, under any circumstances, support the use of torture as a means in the War on Terror & Tyranny.

What did qualify as news to me involving KSM was that apparently he also confessed to being the person who killed Daniel Pearl, the American journalist beheaded in 2002. This was, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), the first beheading by Islamist terrorists during the War on Terror & Tyranny of a non-combatant, setting a grim tone for future gruesome and repugnant acts that also claimed the life of Nick Berg and others. It typifies their approach of deliberately killing innocent people in order to inspire fear among civilian populations, and is one of the defining differences between us and them.

Again, if somebody wants to clarify the confession of responsibility for 9/11, that would be appreciated. I will conclude by stating that I hope this man and all of his accomplices ultimately receive justice--which will not come in the form of their heaven.

Response from the Government

As you will recall, a few months back I sent an essay to the Minister of Justice on the subject of strengthening Canada's laws revolving sexual and other violent offenders (The original post about the essay can be found here, while a link to the essay itself can be found here). In the time between sending that paper and today, there was a Cabinet shuffle that saw Vic Toews replaced by Harold Nicholson, who was at the time the Leader of the House. Nonetheless, it was current Minister Nicholoson who responded to the paper. I received that response today.

First thing that I noticed was the typo. I appreciate the sentiment, but had to chuckle when Nicholson apologized for the "lenghty delay in responding." Oops!

Other than that, the two-page letter ran over Canada's New Government's steps to crack down on violent sexual crimes since taking office. He was nice enough to include an October 17th news release and backgrounder on Bill C-27, which was the government's initiative to make for "more effective sentencing and management of sexual and violent offenders." It also promises to make it easier for the Crown to obtain dangerous offender designations for repeat offenders "by reversing the onus where there is a third serious violent or sexual offence," something which I am certainly in favour of doing and hope that there will be no run-ins with the courts over any potential conflicts with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The response didn't make reference to anything I directly in the essay, which was somewhat disappointing, but I was glad to receive a response and an assurance that the Government does take this matter seriously and is taking steps to address violence against women and children in this country. I may even send a response to Minister Nicholson's response to see how long we can keep the dialogue running. If I do, I'll be sure to post it here.

In the Headlines

The grand return of News Headlines!

Canada is seeking a free trade deal with India. If this happens, it would be colossal in its impact and would have many benefits for both countries. India has the benefit of being the world's most populous democratic state, making it a natural ally and partner of Canada. Access to its rapidly developing markets will be a potential avenue to diversify our export industry, and quality Canadian goods & services will find a home in India, which is expected to have a $400 billion market by the end of the decade. India's been making a lot of strong headlines ever since it signed a nuclear pact with the United States, and this move would be a next step in its integration. I am a supporter of free trade and open markets. Canada has the capability to compete with everybody for its fair share of the market, and now is the time to expand our horizons with the major players of the 21st century.

Turns out that when people who like Michael Moore try to do a documentary about him, they end up not liking him so much at the end of the process. Can't say I blame them.

In sports, Sergei Samsonov regrets signing with the Canadiens. I think it's fair to say that the feeling is mutual. This story should pretty much confirm that the Habs will do everything in their power to move the free-agent signing bust during the off-season, either via buyout or trade. At $3.5M this season, he's made $134,615.38 per point he's notched. That's even less value for money than a sponsorship-era report.

The UN may be getting off its butt and doing something about the genocide in Darfur. Wait, no, they're just saying that the world has to protect the people and that the UN has to step up and do something. So really, they're just talking some more about it, and noticeably failing to use the word "genocide" to describe the atrocities that continue to occur within Sudan. What happened to the Responsibility to Protect? Clearly every single criteria has been met, it's well past time to stop talking and start acting.

If Harper Rights a Wrong, and Nobody Reports It, Did It Happen?

An interesting piece of information came my way on Thursday evening from a Conservative friend of mine. Thursday was, of course, International Women's Day and the Conservative government used the occasion to right quite possibly its greatest tactical error while in office: they restored the $5 million that had been cut from the budget of Status of Women Canada.

The full press release can be found here.

Says Bev Oda, the Minister for the Status of Women and also for Canadian Heritage: "Canada's New Government is proud to enhance the Women's Program in order to make a real difference in the lives of Canadian women facing challenges."

Also from the press release is the following information: The budget of the Women's Program has been increased by 42 percent, bringing it to its highest level ever of $15.3 million. As of April 1, 2007, the Women's Program will have two components: the Women's Community Fund and the Women's Partnership Fund. The Women's Community Fund will support projects at the local, regional and national level in order to enable the full participation of women in all aspects of Canadian life. The newly created Women's Partnership Fund is an enhancement to the existing grant program and will facilitate the engagement of eligible organizations and public institutions through joint projects designed to address issues pertaining to women.

What is most interesting about this maneuver is that the media has been relatively silent on it. This is all the more intriguing given the volume of press and anger that was expressed--from this quarter included, as seen here--when the initial cuts to SWC were made. I wonder, will Stephane Dion continue to use the rhetorical line about this government being anti-women, anti-equality, etc? Will those who refer to this government being the "most woman-hating government in history" (actual quote I read somewhere a few months ago...can't remember where, though) now rescind that comment because things are now at the status quo ante? Are the groups that protested the cuts now going to give the government its due for restoring the funding to a very valuable entity? Will the media report on the story and inform the people of new programs that may come into existence because of the restored funding and its new mechanisms?

Bear in mind, I'm not one for giving out cookies just because they've atoned, but I do give credit where credit is due. The silence from opponents of the original cuts, however, is pretty deafening right now.

Is the Season Lost?

There is less than month left in the NHL regular season, and currently the Canadiens are sitting in 11th place--3 points out of a playoff spot--and have only 13 games left to leap over the other teams in the hunt for the last two spots that are really up for grabs (the 6th place Lightning are 4 points clear of 7th and looking good of late). It has been frustrating more often than not in the past two-plus months to watch them struggle early in games, fall behind, and spend the rest of the night taking poor penalties and not generating the offence needed to get back in the game. It is made all the worse knowing that on December 23rd, this team was only 5 points behind Buffalo for 1st place in the Eatsern Conference.

It is in this context that the lead story in today's Montreal Gazette suggests that the Canadiens' season is all but done, and they should blow up the team during the off-season and undergo some major reconstruction to build a better team in 2007-08. Jack Todd suggests that nobody outside of blue-chip goaltending prospect Carey Price should be considered untouchable. That includes the much beloved Saku Koivu, says Todd. It's been over a dozen years since the glorious victory of 1993, and the team hasn't made it out of the second round since then. Big changes are necessary in order to make this team a legitimate Stanley Cup contender again. Let's be realistic, Habs fans: even if they do make the playoffs, they'll be playing either Buffalo or New Jersey. That would probably mean lights out in a matter of days, even if Cristobal Huet is able to play in the opening round.

So what should be done, then? Obviously, the team owes it to their fans and themselves to play their hearts out for the next four weeks in an effort to make the post-season. As the Edmonton Oilers of 2006 demonstrated, once a team is in, anything is possible. They will need to start playing with much more intensity, desperation, and intelligence. No more terrible penalties, no more coasting through shifts, no more soft goals. They need to recapture the zeitgeist of the first two months of the season. They need people to step up, act like leaders, and get their best players playing like they are the team's best players.

After the season is another story. There's going to be a lot of free agents, including: Sheldon Souray, Andrei Markov, Janne Niinimaa, David Aebischer, Radek Bonk, and Mike Johnson. In this new era of the salary cap, not everybody can be re-signed, which means some difficult choices will have to be made. Of those 6 names above, the Habs should make every effort to retain four of them: Souray, Markov, Bonk, and Johnson. Niinimaa has been in the pressbox for most of the season, and his $2.4M salary will be much better applied elsewhere. Aebischer has clearly lost the confidence of the coach and the team--and the fans--and with Carey Price waiting in the wings, he has been made expendable.

Additionally, Sergei Samsonov and possible even Alex Kovalev should be bought out of their contracts. Samsonov has been a total bust, notching only 26 points this season and spending significant time in the press box while earning $3.5M. Again, money that can be better spent elsewhere. Kovalev has been a polarizing figure off the ice. The recent controversy involving the Russian media, whether real or hoax, has been a horrid distraction at the worst possible time. Couple that with earlier comments this season by the likes of Jean Beliveau about Kovalev's selfishness, and it may be time for the ultra-talented underperformer to be moving along.

The team has a solid core of young players, such as Chris Higgins, Mike Komisarek, the Kotsitsyn brothers, Guillaume Latendresse, Kyle Chipchura, and of course Price. There are others in the system who may also get their shot next season to demonstrate that they belong in the NHL. As the Pittsburgh Penguins are currently demonstrated, youth has the potential to be dominant in today's NHL. Nobody will confuse Higgins for Crosby or Latendresse for Malkin, but these are two very able players that can make their mark with this team and become leaders and mainstays for years to come. Retain some of the veteran presence to help guide them and ease some of the pressure that playing in Montreal brings, but give the future a chance to make itself known now.

Where is M. Dion?

Last Thursday I put out a plea for information regarding the whereabouts of Stephane Dion's appearance in Halifax. It went unanswered. Now it's likely that nobody really cared enough to fill me in (after all, I apparently sold my Liberal soul to become a Tory....thanks JBG!), but there's also the possibility that nobody else actually knew.

I've seen in a couple places, no less than the top headline at Bourque, that all of Dion's appearances on this cross-country tour (the ones that aren't sabotaged by the heavy hand of Stephen Harper) are being kept on the down-low. The story that Bourque links to in the Post begins with this simple introduction: "Stephane Dion was in Toronto yesterday. Somewhere."

Needless to say, this is highly problematic for a leader that is having excessive difficulties establishing himself and diffusing Tory attacks that proclaim Dion is "not a leader." If the people can't access Dion and hear what he has to say, the only message they will have about him is the caricature created by his opponents. The mildly-Liberal-friendly media can only do so much to highlight his positives (he was the Liberal architect of the Clarity Act, an important piece of legislation, absolutely, but one that came out almost a decade ago and probably something that nobody who doesn't take constitutional law classes has ever read), and sometimes even that gets boring. The Globe today, for example, has a story about Dion's former Cabinet colleague and Environment Minister at the time Chretien signed on to Kyoto pointing out that M. Dion wasn't exactly the best champion for selling Kyoto to the provinces when he was Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. Christine Stewart says, "I think what I am saying is he wasn't against [Kyoto], but he was not a champion. But then he wasn't unique. If you can find a champion [in that Liberal cabinet], let me know." Ouch.

So in the few glimpses that the public gets of Dion, it's leaning strongly towards the negative. The Tory message is clearly working to this point, and that is reflected in the sharp drop in Liberal popularity since December 2006 when Dion took the helm. If he wants to meet with small groups of grassroots members, fine, but shutting out the broader public and keeping everybody, the media included, in the dark as to his whereabouts will do nothing to expand party membership or support.

As I said on Thursday, I would not have gone to Dion's event in Halifax (turns out it was in Dartmouth) to do the cheering thing or grab myself a membership form at the end of the speech. But I would have listened and made a report here so that people could hear about it from a source that is neither pretending to be neutral (i.e. the media) or a partisan supporter. I would have given props where due and been critical where appropriate. As it is, all we got in the local press was a couple of really uninspired recaps and the establishment of a secret tour that everybody knows about. He was here. Somewhere. That is not good enough. I'm not a Tory member but I learn, usually a day in advance, where the Prime Minister will be on any given day. That is the upshot of signing up for the PM's mailing list, I guess. You can do that too by following the link on the right. Availability is key. Access is crucial. When Stephen Harper goes out and about to meet Canadians, they have a reasonable idea of where he will be and when he will be there. The same does not appear to apply for the Leader of the Opposition, and that will ultimately cost him face-time with potential voters.

Hatred Hits Home in Toronto

Easily the most vile story of the day comes from Toronto, where four young (and I use the term extremely loosely) men--two youths who cannot be named plus a pair of shitheads named Philip Perry and Barton Reeder--raped an unconscious young woman. And they videotaped it on their cellphones, presumably to forever treasure the memory of their action and show it off to their friends. They probably would have even told themselves that she was asking for it, since she didn't say "no" and all.

This is the type of story that should make every decent human being shudder in disgust. I know that since I first saw the headline in this morning's Post and subsequently read about it again in the G&M and saw it on CTV, a fury has been building inside of me. It is the type of thing that makes me want to call the Minister of Justice's office and repeat the calls from all corners of the country to get serious and impose some serious punishments for this type of violent offence against the integrity of the person. Sure, stiffer penalties may not deter everybody from committing crime, but they will make at least some potential perpetrators think twice. Getting locked away for 20 or 30 years would no doubt affect the thinking of some potential rapists who would no longer feel as though it was worth the risk.

Of course, we probably have to take another step back. If groups of young men are patrolling the streets looking for passed-out women to gang rape, we're already in a world of trouble. Kids such as this already have such hatred for women that they're actively looking for targets to express that hatred and assert their lust for domination. The parents, the schools, and the system have already failed by this point. And the ones that have to suffer, as is often the case, are women. Women bear the main brunt of male hatred.

How many will it take until people stand up and say "NO MORE!" We're already at a point where 1 in 3 women in Canada will experience male violence during the course of their lifetimes. Does it have to be 1 in 2? 2 out of 3? 3 out of 4? 4 out of 5? All of them? At what stage of things do women and men--particularly the latter, since it is ONLY MEN WHO CAN STOP RAPE--collectively say, "Enough of this bullshit. It is well past time we took action against those who rape and inflict violence against women simply because they are women." Because clearly 1 in 3 isn't enough.

A 16-year old girl, who had no agency or ability to defend herself in this circumstance, was assaulted by a group of males who hated her for what she is. Will they face the appropriate consequences? Seemingly yes: they are being charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, gang sexual assault and manufacturing child pornography. Philip Perry is also facing a charge of uttering death threats, while one of the 17-year-olds is facing an additional charge of possession of child pornography. If convicted, they will face jail time, a not insignificant amount of it. The young woman, however, will have to bear the scars of this assault for the remainder of her life. Whatever their intentions were, these men have profoundly affected, for the worst, the life of another human being that they didn't even see as a person. And it is for that reason, I conclude by asking: will the consequences, if any, amount to justice? On that front, I fear that the answer, as it so often is, is no.

Sticker Sightings

Looks like someone's taking a page from CharlieGrrl's playbook...ahhh the fun. In case you have trouble making out the wording on the "Warning" stickers, they read: "Use of this product may impair your ability to relate to actual women and has also been shown to increase levels of aggression against them in laboratory experiments."

The Wonder of Schmoo

Though I am well-gifted when it comes to the power of prose, on the poetry front, not so much. With that in mind, I turn it over to one Elvis Aaron Presley...

When no one else can understand me
When everything I do is wrong
You give me love and consolation
You give me hope to carry on
And you're always there to lend a hand in everything I do
That's the wonder, the wonder of you

And when you smile the world is brighter
You touch my hand and I am a king
Your love to me is worth a fortune
Your love for me is everything

I guess I'll never know the reason why
You love me as you do
'Cause, that's the wonder, the wonder of you

I guess, I'll never know the reason why
You love me as you do
'Cause that's the wonder, the wonder of you

-----

Thank you for the most amazing and wonderful two years, Anna Lou. I love you more than I can possibly ever tell you. Like I said before, it all makes so much sense.

*shock* UN Incompetent at Advancing Mandate

It is a vulgar morning here in Halifax. The sidewalks are treacherous combinations of snow, ice, slush, and 6-inch deep water. Trekking through this disgusting combination at 6am is not the most enjoyable way for one to enjoy a Saturday, but sometimes you do what you gotta do.

No less vulgar is a story in today's Post documenting the unwillingness of the United Nations to name and shame countries that systemically abuse women's human rights. The story particularly focuses on the case of a U.S.-organized UN parallel conference called "State-Sanctioned Mass Rape in Burma and Sudan" that would address, you guessed it, state-sanctioned mass rape occurring in the military dictatorship of Burma (Myanmar to its friends and fellow juntas) and in the Darfur region of Sudan. It turns out that some very high-ranking officials at the UN sent some very strongly worded emails to the U.S. mission strongly objecting to the placement of the names of the two misogyny-endorsing countries in the title, and therefore asked the conference organizers to move the event somewhere off of UN property.

Should this move surprise anybody? Not really. We are talking about the UN after all. The same organization that has been impotent to uphold its supposed core principles and prevent genocide in Darfur and the Congo, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, WMD production in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea really shouldn't be expected to uphold other such lofty principles as promoting the idea that women are human beings and deserve to be treated accordingly. It is beyond contempt that they refuse to "name and shame" those states that are complicit and actively involved in targetting women for the most heinous of crimes and violations of the person. This is not the first time the UN has shunted women in order to protect the sterling reputation of the most vile states from being publicly embarrassed for their deplorable treatment of women. The story also notes a recent event in which a young Pakistani woman, Mukhtar Mai, was ordered by a tribal judge to be gang-raped because her brother had the audacity to try and make friends with a person in a higher caste was to appear at a film screening about this atrocity was cancelled because Pakistan's Prime Minister was at the UN that week and officials felt that would send the wrong message to his government.

I'm of the mind that silencing women who speak out against their government advocating rape as a legitimate form of penalty for the actions of other human beings sends the wrong message. However, that is what the UN does. Building a clandestine nuclear program and are worried that the US and other states may take action against you? Don't worry, the Security Council will make sure nothing happens to you. Have a terrible human rights record? Fear not, the UN will put you on its Human Rights Council and you can blame it on Israel. Practicing genocide and systemic rape against minority groups? As long as you keep it within your boundaries, we have no responsibility to protect those people. Need some extra cash because the sanctions we imposed in a fit of pique ten years ago are crippling your ability to build shrines to yourself? We can help with that; in fact, the Secretary General's son's phone number is right here.

It is deeply regrettable that the United Nations fails to take its mandate to advance the causes of women seriously, and prefers to protect decrepit regimes from suffering the humiliation of the world knowing that it is their custom to abuse, degrade, rape, and murder women simply because they are women. The women of the world deserve far better. They deserve to have an entity that will speak out and lobby hard for governments to publicly denounce those states which practice barbaric atrocities against them. 6-year old girls in Cambodia should not be locked in cages and suffer in silence while their government turns a blind eye to their pernicious rape industry. Women in Darfur should not have to suffer the indignity of being raped by soldiers who have just murdered all the men of a village. Young women in other parts of Africa should not have to live in the constant fear of being raped by HIV-infected men who believe the atrocious lie that sex with a virgin will cure them. These are types of issues that the UN and its member states, including and especially Canada, should be condemning with the full force of their authority. Instead, many of these incidents go undocumented or, worse, shoved aside to protect the guilty and complicit.

Dion in Halifax, But Where?

I read yesterday at the CTV website that Stephane Dion will be in Halifax today. I can't find out where or when. There's nothing about it on the Liberal website or Dion's own site (which doesn't look like it's been updated since December), and calls to Dion's office have gone unanswered. My fellow traveller, Chucker, has insisted that I try to get the 411 on this hootenany and try to attend. If anybody knows, do tell.

Now, I'm not going to do the rah-rah thing. We're an awfully long way and time from this, after all:

But I do like notion of social justice and would like to hear what Dion has to say on the matter. I hope that he's got some ideas for getting prostituted women out from under the control of pimps that go beyond making Ottawa the country's big pimp daddy. I hope he has a plan for utilizing the talents and credentials of new Canadians so that they can fulfill their dreams of a better life than their home countries may have offered. Despite his less-than-stellar performance thus far as Liberal leader, I still have a lot of respect for Dion (long-time readers all know the story) and would genuinely be interested in hearing what he's got to say on subjects that are of importance to me in my voting considerations. As long as the answer to all of the problems of social injustice isn't "Ottawa is here to help" it could be a speech well worth listening to. But where is it?!?

Dion Puts Party Control Over Canada's National Interest

I was disheartened--but not shocked--to see the Liberals vote against the preventative detention measure that was put in place by the Chretien Liberals to permit authorities to arrest, without charges, suspected terrorists in Canada. They also voted down the section of the Anti-Terrorist Act (Bill C-36) that would have compelled detained suspected terrorists to spill the beans in front of a judge. The measures had never once been utilized by the Government of Canada to preemptively arrest those who would seek to kill Canadian citizens using the means of terrorism for their own nihilistic ends. Yet, incomprehensively, the Liberals framed any use of these measures as an unneccesary abridgement of constitutional liberties, deeming that the civil liberties of people who hate Canada are more important than ensuring security for Canadians.

Due credit is to be given to Irwin Cotler, Tom Wappel, and the dozen Liberal MPs who defied Stephane Dion's imposition of party discipline. I have always had tremendous respect for Cotler, who has a clear understanding of the importance of civil liberties and is one of Canada's foremost constitutional experts. He has been involved in this type of constitutional debate for well over a quarter of a century now, working behind the scenes on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, advocating a strong defence of same-sex marriage rights, and earning the respect of fellow international legal experts such as Alan Dershowitz. Wappel was the only Liberal MP to vote in favour of extending these anti-terrorist measures for another three years; rather than being credited for standing up for Canada, his caucus will likely severely punish him for defying the will of the Leader.

The Liberals were severely divided over this issue, and Dion chose to appease the party's left wing--the new Liberal motto seems to be: when in doubt, outflank Jack Layton. Let me diverge for a moment and make an important statement that is at the heart of this decision: party discipline is a central feature of a Westminster-style Parliament such as ours. I have no problem with a leader, particularly a new one looking to establish his authority and leadership credentials, exercising his authority to unite a divided caucus in the best interest of the country. Dion got the first half, but this maneuver does not represent the best interest of Canada or Canadians. It has been less than a year since the arrest of 18 Toronto-area extremists who had concocted a plan to blow up government buildings, storm Parliament, and seize and behead the Prime Minister of Canada. We know that there are those in the country who share similar sentiments and affiliations. In the event that some of them band together to hatch a similar plan of destruction, the Government now has one less tool at its disposal to preempt and prevent a potential attack against Canada.

Yet in the face of this, Dion deemed that demonstrating his authority had to be his prime consideration. The "big tent" that was once so respective of people such as myself, or Riley, or some friends back in Kelowna, has now shrunk to such an extent that Keith Martin, Don Bell, Derek Lee, and Roy Cullen did not even feel comfortable enough to show up to vote against Dion and in favour of extending the measures. The Liberal audience is shrinking because of its own decisions, alienating those on the centre-right to appeal to those on the left and preserve their own centre-left coalition. They believe, and who knows, they may be right, that there is more inclination among Canadians to veer to the left. Heck, just yesterday one of my co-workers revealed her sympathy with communism and its bastion in Cluba, Fidel Castro, while another was happy to intervene with the declaration that Bush is a dictator. No doubt the Liberal decision will then appeal to these two voters.

The leftist media is rejoicing today. The political cartoon in today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald explicitly suggests that Stephen Harper would like to create a Guantanamo Bay North in Hudson Bay. The Liberals' star blogger accuses Harper of stealing a "Bush-ism" in calling Dion what he is: soft on terrorism. Neither of these comments provides any substance on the matter, or explain any of the legitimate reasons that the Liberals could have used to justify their position. Rather, it's about portraying "scary Harper" by linking him to Bush. In this, they are behaving like nationalists of a second-rate country; well, let me tell you something, Canada is not a second-rate country and we don't need that type of bush-league approach to advocating the Canadian interest. The Liberals are seemingly intent on social engineering the country's political spectrum so that the left becomes the new centre and pragmatic thinking that leans towards a strong Canada becomes "far right," as Dion regularly characterizes Harper. If this theory proves to be true, and I believe it does, they are moving in the wrong direction and the consequences for Canada could be severe.

In Defence of Britney Spears, Person

Over the course of the past week or so, Britney Spears has been in the headlines a lot, for reasons that have nothing to do with her music career. First, it was Headline News for 24 hours on serious news channels that she got her head shaved and got a couple of tattoos. Then, in mostly tabloid fodder, it was revealed that she had checked herself into rehab. A day later, there was a frenzy over her leaving. Mixed in with this was the announcement that her court date to determine custody of her two children with Kevin Federline was put on delay because of her rehab stint.

For any non-celebrity, male or female, none of these events warrant countless hours of television time. I shaved my head last June and not a single television camera captured it to put it up on TMZ or YouTube or to sell the footage to CNN. But the cult of celebrity in North America is such that anything a remotely famous person does is amplified to become "newsworthy," regardless of its actual importance or consequence to any human beings beside the subject in question. And only for celebrities is getting one's head shaved something used in the court of public opinion to determine whether they or their ex-spouse should get custody of the kids. And amplify that if it's a woman doing it.

Now, I am not a fan of Britney's music, and I never have been. Pop doesn't cut it for me, and the record label-engineered turn to Britney's full-on sexual exploitation and degradation--which they referred to as her "maturing"--certainly didn't do anything to make me a fan.

Of course, in the past couple of years, Britney's music career has been put on hold--maybe never to return--as she turned to family life: marriage, kids, and ultimately, divorce. It is in this arena, more than any other, that the dehumanization and hatred towards Britney Spears have manifested in ever-more prominent and despicable fashion. Say what you will about her music--I certainly have--but it is an entirely separate category of bile that is thrown towards her that is so offensive and should serve as a reminder to all women that there are some men out there who hate them.

How does the misogyny directed towards Britney represent a microcosm of a broader hatred of all women?

Britney Spears is a highly successful woman. In many of the hate-filled comments made by men about her, the evidence of jealousy is clear and in abundance. Jealousy of her success and their own decidedly average or uneventful lives. This is something that is fairly pervasive in society, as many men feel intimidated by women who make more money than them, creating a sense of resentment and anger. She defies the archetype, the norm that men make and are entitled to make more money than women. She may do so in a manner that isn't the most positive role model for young women, relying on her sexuality and body more than her vocal talent, but she has reached a point where she will be financially secure for herself and her kids and their kids...at the young age of 25 years old. It is the use of her image that can result in a lot of problems, exactly the same as any other powerful female public person has to encounter, and many of them don't even use their corporeal vessels to get ahead. Which leads to comments like this from random men:

"When your looks are your number one asset, why get rid of them?"
"can't believe why she did this, she used to be such a pretty girl, but over the past years she really made herself uglier, getting these huge breasts and now this... shame"
"My god this bird is so stupid i just want to give her a slap and tell her to grow up."
"Can't believe this trailer trash whore still makes the news."
"I think Britney's a scumbag, dumb bitch no matter what she does"

Being a high-profile woman, Britney is of course obligated to fulfill her obligations under the Professional Beauty Qualification so that she is visually acceptable to the men out there. This doesn't nullify their anger that she makes truckloads more money than they'll ever see, but it does allow them to still use her as an object for their own gratification. Note the comment lamenting how it's such a "shame" that she's not "such a pretty girl" that meets his standards of hawtness. Of course, for some people it doesn't even matter what she looks like since she's a "scumbag" regardless of anything that she chooses to do in her life. Ignore the fact that she's made significant donations to cancer charities and has a foundation in her name that is dedicated to helping needy children, she's just a "dumb bitch" that needs a few good slaps so that she grows up, learns her place, and gets hot again so that she can entertain men.

An example of "sympathy" being shown:
"she is still human but that doesnt automatically make her a person...you have to have a personality to be a person."

This is how people on the Internet refer to Britney Spears when they pretend to feel bad for her. I suppose that it is only a degree less bad than some of the comments directed at Anna Nicole Smith after her death. Some folks out there decried that her death was not a particularly huge deal, seeing as she'd "never contributed anything to the world" and all. This coming from people who have made no contribution of note to making the world a better place, it seems a little rich.

The manner in which high-profile women are treated has a trickle-down effect on the way all women perceive themselves and how men feel about them. We are on the cusp of seeing a woman secure the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 2008, yet rather than embracing this historic occasion, the hatred thrown at Hillary Clinton has been readily evident. A fellow blogger, known far better than I am for Blaming the Patriarchy, had a post a couple of weeks ago regarding Donatella Versace's comments that Hillary needs to stop acting like a man and be more "feminine." Tasha came across a KFC billboard picture that was advertising the "Hillary special," which consists of "two small breasts, two fat thights, and a left wing." While the wing part was good for a laugh, the first two-thirds were a reminder that this will be the first presidential campaign in history in which a candidate's bust size, thighs, and degree of sexual desirability to men will be issues. When a woman who works 9-5 at a crap job for 2/3 of what her male colleagues makes overhears how said colleagues and other men spew the hate-filled garbage they do at Britney Spears or Hillary Clinton or any woman that has a spotlight on her, how is she supposed to feel? Is it any wonder that a lot of women don't seek high-profile work that will subject them to similar discussions?

Again, I have no interest to sit through a Britney Spears video to listen to one of her songs. That type of music does nothing for me. But Britney Spears is a human being, a person, and that's why I will occasionally listen to what people are saying about her. Sadly, the lack of empathy or consideration for her humanity all too often come to the fore. The term "trainwreck" and a host of other such terms (see above) seek to portray her as an evil force in the world, while young men who are apparently still embittered over her having the audacity to marry Kevin Federline seek to deny her of even being a human being. That is wrong. Whatever her faults and foibles, she is still a person who is entitled to be treated with a measure of dignity and respect, something glaringly absent from much of the public discourse around her.

British Withdrawing; America Alone?

Word going around is that tomorrow British PM Tony Blair is going to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq. The initial "stand down" will be some 1500 troops, rumoured to be completed within weeks, and another 1500 by year's end. That represents almost half of the British contingent of 7,000 troops, most of whom are stationed in the predominantly Shi'ite south of Iraq, in places such as Basra and Umm Qasr. These areas, while far less dangerous than Baghdad and the rest of the Suuni Triangle, still have their share of danger, and the British have done an admirable job of bringing a significant measure of security to that region of the war-torn country.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer was quick--almost a little too quick--to highlight that the British have been America's most steadfast ally in the Iraq War and that this move by Britain represents a potential split between the two allies, citing that they may not be "on the same page." To me, this sounds like an attempt to portray the United States and the Bush Administration as isolated on Iraq. I can't believe that Blair would announce such a significant policy without at first consulting with Bush, giving him something of a heads-up. Blind-siding your best friend and ally isn't something in Blair's character, so my wager is that Bush was aware of this maneuver and gave it his blessing. He may be frustrated at the move, as it does seem a paradox that Britain is lowering its force output while America is "surging" its troop numbers in Baghdad, but he has no other option but to respect the sovereign decision of London.

Where does this leave Washington? Getting closer and closer to fulfilling Bush's prophecy of some years ago that "at some point, we may be the only ones left" fighting in the War on Terror & Tyranny. Though I remain supportive of the theoretical framework behind the Iraq War, it is clear that there have a number of wasted opportunities to rebuild the country and further assist its transition to a functional, secure, and fully sovereign democratic state. Though the UN was formally given a role in reconstruction via the passage of a Security Council Resolution internationalizing post-war Iraq, the United States has been unable to get other states to assist it. Whether due to lingering wounds over the war debate or a reluctance to allow other states to carry the weight (a point on which I can empathize to an extent), the inability to get other states more on-board, to get them to feel as though they have a stake in the country's future, is a diplomatic failure for which Secretary Rice needs to be held accountable. She has been largely invisible in recent months, notwithstanding her recent trip to Iraq, a major disappointment given the promise she held when she first took over the role from the much-respected Colin Powell.

In the end, the only thing that matters at this point is securing Iraq to the extent that it can at least govern itself without permitting terrorist organizations or neighbouring Iran to hold significant influence over its future. Either of these scenarios would represent a nightmare, antithetical to the stated objectives of the United States for removing Saddam Hussein. The British have not announced a total withdrawal, and it is in their interest as well as Washington's to consider the notion of moving troops closer to the middle of the country to help out in the most dangerous regions. That is something which only Britain can ultimately decide, but the close London-Washington relationship and Britain's own considerable stake in the outcome of Iraq would hopefully lead them to consider all the options that are on the table before them.

6 in a Row

The Canadiens have lost six in a row and now find themselves sitting two points back of 8th place Toronto in the playoff race. It is almost unbelievable that two months ago, we were only 5 points behind Buffalo for 1st in the Eastern Conference. The news is bad both on the ice and off of it: the team can't score, and the players are getting hurt. Koivu isn't performing like a leader, taking bad penalties, missing opportunities, and failing to rally the team to push their hardest at this time of the season. Kovalev is out 3 weeks, Rivet's been out with the flu, and Huet is now lost for the season because of surgery to repair a torn hamstring.

It's been a sad sight watching this team night in, night out for the past two months. They've become one-dimensional on the power-play, the penalty-killing unit has disappeared, and even the goaltending has been only average. It's great that Souray scored his 20th of the season last night, he's been the strongest leader on and off the ice, unafraid to call guys out who aren't playing up to par. In my view, he should be re-signed and given the captain's C because he's proven himself to be the Habs' top player this season. I know that Koivu is the face of the franchise, but he's not getting it done lately, not having scored in 11 games and doing as much harm as good.

What are the options? With the trade deadline looming, rumours are naturally flying everywhere. Will the team add players? Will they shuttle away impending free agents for prospects and draft picks? Will they look for a goaltender after today if Jaroslav Halak has a poor debut? All are important considerations, and no doubt Bob Gainey is going to be on the phones a lot in the next 9 days looking for the best course to chart for his team.

Were it up to me, and mercifully it is not, I'd be looking to be a buyer at the deadline. They're only two back of Toronto, who they'll play three more times before the end of the season. They play Boston--who are jettisoning this season already--4 times, and have only a handful of games left against teams that are legitimately Stanley Cup contenders. In other words, there are a lot of matches left that are decidedly winnable...on paper, anyways. They should be able to beat the Bruins, the Rangers, the Capitals, and the Blues of the NHL. Should. And that's why Gainey has to have an eye towards strengthening the team for a playoff run this year. Move one or two of the impending UFA's and maybe even a couple roster players that aren't performing in order to make this team better for the playoffs. This season is by no means lost, and there needs to be an emphasis on winning the Stanley Cup now.

Canadian Props and Their Uses

Yesterday I read a story over at the Globe in which Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier referred to the 1990s as a "decade of darkness" for the Canadian Forces. Spending cuts, rotting equipment, personnel cuts, and a general negligence of the Forces left many institutions of the military "on life support," Hillier added. With the recent funding increases and promised purchases of new equipment, he noted that the CF are starting to emerge from that "decade of darkness" and turn the corner.

One Liberal was not so impressed with Hillier's speech. Denis Coderre decried the term "decade of darkness" (even though Hillier has used it before) and noted that Paul Martin had a plan to bring the Forces back to health. Yes he did, a highly backloaded five-year plan that would have done little in the first three years, putting the Forces in an even more dire situation. He added that Hillier was a mere "Tory prop" and stated, "To get involved in politics, there is one way. You should run."

Now, coming from a man who was used as a Hezbollah prop last summer, these are some mighty audacious words. At least Hillier is, in Coderre's bizarre formulation, "being used" by the Government of Canada in order to make the case for a stronger Canada and Canadian Forces. Coderre is a prop that's been used to make the case for a stronger Hezbollah. Frankly, my loyalty lies with the Chief of Defence Staff far more profoundly than it does with someone who marches with people who scream "Death to Israel!" and seek to destroy the only mature democratic state in the Middle East.

The second part of Coderre's statement is even more bizarre. To charge that there is only "one way" to make speeches or statements that have political overtones is just plain wacky. Running for an election is not the only venue in a free country for Canadians to disseminate political speech. Hillier himself is no politician; he's simply a Canadian--a damn good one at that--who is speaking the truth about something he cares about passionately. Why "should" Rick Hillier run for election? He's a military leader who was addressing a conference of military-affiliated organizations, something he is perfectly entitled to do in this country. If he wants to wax about the moon and the stars, he can do that. If he wants to stay on topic and discuss the perilous situation of the Canadian Forces for the past 15 years, he can do that too.

Hillier has always been blunt in his strategic assessments and they are always made with an eye to drawing attention to the most important institution charged with defending Canadian sovereignty and projecting Canada into the world. When he makes a statement that the Government utilizes, it is because that statement is in the public interest. He is not a prop or a showpiece, he has a voice and a strong opinion that deserves to be heard on this subject. Now, after he marched under a Hezbollah flag, Coderre did denounce the rocket attacks of both "Israel and Hezbollah," making sure to put Israel first in order to somewhat placate the pro-Hezbollah crowd he was addressing.

There is a key distinction between the two. Hillier is noted for his words and his leadership. Props don't speak, their effect comes from their visual effect. And, folks, the visual effect of Denis Coderre marching alongside a bunch of Hezbollah flag-waving terrorist supporters speaks volumes.

Year Zero

On a completely different note, here's the tracklisting for the next NIN album, Year Zero. This is going to be interesting and it's definitely got some political overtones to it.

Political Party Thinking

With less than two months until my 26th birthday I'm looking forward to the prospect of (re-?)joining a political party without automatically being shuffled into the youth wing. As anybody who knows me well knows, I dislike party youth wings. At events, we're meant to be caterers and go-get-this people, kept well away from the important people lest we corrupt the old boys' club. At conventions, they use their number to force illogical, incoherent, and dangerous resolutions on the floor to cause all sorts of trouble and embarrassment for the party and sometimes even the country. And of course they're well-known as beer-guzzling sycophants looking for a party, a keg, a thong (apparently they were huge souvenir items at the last Liberal festival), or a politician to tag alongside. Sure I've gotten my picture taken with more than a couple Cabinet ministers du jour, and the ex-PM quite a few times, but the bright ideas and enthusiasm that youth bring to the policy table are often overlooked for those more negative things listed above.

I've been a free agent for well over a year now, surveying the political landscape and trying to figure out where I would best fit if I were to grab a button and put a card in my wallet. Foreign affairs? Conservative, definitely. Status of Women Canada? More Liberal-inclined. Childcare? None of the above. Lower taxes? Conservative. Post-secondary education funding? I'm not exactly sure what the NDP's policy is, but I'd wager it's more generous to professional students (I do love that term) than either of the Big Two. Charter Freedoms and the notwithstanding clause? Definitely Liberal--you stay the hell away from s.33.

It truly is a difficult choice for someone who straddles that divide on a few issues. If I were able to overlook their poor policy choice on SWC and didn't have some lingering concerns about some of the more socialy conservative elements, I'd be a Tory. If I could overlook a foreign policy that would turn Canada into Janus at every opportunity or a childcare position that says my potential future children will be criminals unless I turn them over to Ottawa, I'd rejoin the Libs. I don't particularly enjoy partisan hackery, though there definitely were some fun moments rankling Tories and especially Werner Schmidt back in the day. I think it might have been an easier decision if Ignatieff had won the Liberal leadership, because as much as I respect Dion and perennially owe him my gratitude for taking the time to write a letter to a 16-year old kid going to high school in Oliver, BC, I just don't like this one-track mentality that the Party has under his guidance. Yes the environment is an important priority, but it is not the only thing happening in the world and it certainly isn't in such terrible shape that every day represents one more step towards the apocalypse. Or maybe it is. Any enviro scientists out there that can set me straight without hyperirrationality?

I want to be in a position where I can contribute something to the public discourse on a wider scale than this here blog. I like shooting the breeze with people about political issues, and having a party membership definitely facilitates that. I don't even mind when I'm the only one in the room that agrees with me (as was seemingly the case at the Liberal hobnob in Kelowna in 2004 on the BMD issue, though I wasn't in a room then) on a particular subject. Heck, even being the best Simon Says player in Halifax is a good reason to want to hang out with political-types (this is a really inside joke that like two people in the world may get).

So I don't know. Maybe I'll have to wait until an election is called and see who's going in what direction on what issues that matter the most to me. That could be a while, it could be a few weeks. I'm not even leaning in a particular direction right now. Maybe I need to make some phone calls and revive the Chateau Clique and establish it here in Halifax with some of my old cohorts, I just dunno.

Ideas? Anyone?

Next Five Songs

1. Bryan Adams - Hearts on Fire - Anna Lou loves this song!

2. Def Leppard - Hysteria - I've never understood why some music stations insist on classifying Def Lep as "metal." Hard rock, yes, but not metal. The label makes little difference, as they are a great band both in the studio and live. Having seen them twice and owning more than a couple albums, I can attest to that. This one is def. one of my favourites of theirs.

3. Nine Inch Nails - The Persistence of Loss - holy obscure tracks i-Habs-Pod. This one's only available on the Still CD that was pretty limited issue when Halo 17 came out. Very minimalist (much like the forthcoming Year Zero, apparently) and an instrumental, this really is music one can listen to on a Sunday afternoon as background noise.

4. The Tea Party - Stargazer - didn't this one pop up another time I did this? I can't make this stuff up, folks. I still love this song.

5. Apocalyptica - Misconstruction - ahhh my favourite metal cellists. They've added drums and even vocals for some songs now, adding a new layer to their music and giving them some more dynamics.

Misogyny Poll

Less than 24 hours after the death of Anna Nicole Smith, CNN has a poll up trying to figure out exactly how people objectify her the most. Only one of the options have her as a subject, a human being, a person. No, instead your main options are "gold-digger," "surgically-enhanced model," "glamorous star," or All of the Above. Predictably the most human categorization of this woman is in a distant third place, well behind gold-digger and some combination of all the other object categories. Like anybody, specifically any woman, who lives a life in the spotlight, there is always a rush to stamp them with something that makes them feel less like "the rest of us," a normal person who has feelings and hopes and dreams of their own. They are othered, they are different, they are an object to be disseminated, discussed, ridiculed, criticized, and used for whatever selfish ends individuals and conglomerates see fit. One doesn't need to be a supporter or a fan of Anna Nicole to say that she deserves better than this:

Happy Birthday Charter!!!

For 25 years Canadians have been under the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has acted exactly as Pierre Trudeau envisioned it: a sword and a shield used to safeguard the liberties and freedoms of Canadian citizens from the oppression of the government. It is a living document, and the Charter is directly responsible for the evolution of rights regimes in this country, be it same-sex marriage, protection of religious minorities, and ensuring the fundamental freedoms that we all enjoy equally under the law.

In that regard, it is fortuitous that my forthcoming essay publication in Federal Governance is coming out when it is. The notwithstanding clause is a controversial--yet central--piece of the Charter; without it, we would not even have a Charter because some of the provinces wanted to override some rights in the name of public morality or interest. Of course, that intention has not exactly panned out as those premiers may have expected, and for this, we have Canadians to thank. Our deep-seeded attachment to rights and freedoms has erected a taboo against the usage of the notwithstanding clause to ensure that the rights and freedoms prescribed by the Charter remain intact and undisturbed by governments. Every non-placeholding* Prime Minister in the Charter era has had their own bouts with the notwithstanding clause, and every one of them has acted pursuant to their dilemma of aversion, rejecting the use of the notwithstanding clause because it would be an admission that they were taking away rights from Canadians. The power of this normative barrier is profound, and something about which all of us have a stake in maintaining.

The rest of the Charter is far less controversial. Indeed, some would argue that what is not protected by the Charter is more noteworthy than the rights that are protected. The lack of protection of property rights is something which PM Stephen Harper has said he would address in the event of a renewed constitutional dialogue, though it is not something that is anywhere near the top of his list of priorities.

The other sections of the Charter assure Canadians are entitled to certain fundamental freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion; the Charter prescribes the right to "life, liberty, and the security of the person" (an underrated statement that I feel should trump "peace, order, and good government" as the key statement of the role of the federal government), which is controversial in its own right because of the implications around the abortion issue; and, lastly of note, the Charter provides for equality under the law without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other form of "othering."

In short, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the finest political achievement in Canada, and certainly the most significant aspect of the Canadian Constitution. It is an instrument to which Canadians can look upon with pride and dignity, and take comfort in the protection of the rights and values that we so closely cherish.

Next Five Songs on the i-Habs-Pod

It's a good list today:

1. The Rolling Stones - Streets of Love (Live in Halifax) - ahh the memories.

2. Metallica - St. Anger (Live in Ottawa) - see what I said for #1. They were giving the song the fireworks treatment live at this point, which usually means good things for the song's staying power. Number of times played in 2006? Two. Likelihood of being played in the future? Slim.

3. The Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil - great song, much better than the Guns cover (hoping this draws out the sisters).

4. Bryan Adams - Open Road - pretty much the only good song on the last album. It even got the Chevy truck commercial treatment, almost makes you wonder if BA ever had that in mind.

5. Metallica - The Thing That Should Not Be (Live in Calgary) - Heavy beyond heavy. This song scares the kids, especially when they have that creepy eye thing on the video screen.

News du Jour

Garth Turner has joined the Liberals. Will he run in a by-election? Or is this going to be another instance of the move being based on "principle"? My guess is the latter. On the upside, it'll save the taxpayers a few million bucks. Although, given the time lapse between him going independent and joining the Liberals, there may even be some heretofore unseen "escape clause" that'll let him bypass it all together.

The Liberals, the NDP, and the separatists teamed up to pass a resolution affirming Canada's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. Like just about anything associated with the Liberals and Kyoto, it's not binding and carries no actual force.

Sergei Samsonov has been put on waivers by the Habs. Hopefully someone will take him off the team's hands. It's safe to say that he's been a major disappointment this season. Best of luck to him wherever he ends up.

Telus has made mobile phone porn available. It's going to be a multi-billion dollar industry in the coming years, and the Telus folks figure that "it's only offering what's now universally available," and decided they may as well get a slice of the market. One more reason to not do any business with Telus.

It's been twenty minutes since I last saw a news story creating more hysteria around the impending environmental apocalypse. I'm sure that a new public service announcement will be coming along in very short order.

I finished the Granatstein book last night. As I said a week or so ago, it's a very realist, pragmatic, book that advocates for a closer reading and explanation of Canadian national interests in terms of our relationship with the United States, strengthening the Canadian Forces, and getting seriously engaged with the rest of the world. I found very little disagreeable with the book (though I do agree with Radwanski's assessment that the doomsday first chapter is really good melodramatic fiction), and I think that anybody who even dances around calling themselves a foreign policy hawk would enjoy reading it. Granatstein is moving away from pure historical works into commentaries on contemporary issues facing Canada, and the politico world is better off for it.

Coming Home!

"So far away, been far away for far too long."

I'm coming back to the Okanagan in May! Oh rapture, oh joy! Any way we can fast-forward the next three months?

Super Bowl Weekend!

First, you'll notice that I've done some administrative clean-up on the sidebar. Archives now date back to the beginning of my time in Halifax, instead of March 2004 when this blog began. I'm doing so on the basis of the maturation of both the blog and its owner since August 2005; who I am now isn't entirely the same person I was then. I want this space to as closely represent my current thoughts as much as possible, and arbitrarily decided that the move from Kelowna to Halifax was a significant enough point of departure.

On to more important things...

Two big Habs games this weekend, including the rematch with Pittsburgh. If it's anything like the game on Thursday, people are going to be BEGGING to see them square off in the playoffs. As it is, if we can have the same fire and passion with a different result, I'll be happy.

We decided to check out Saw III last night. The first two were enjoyable because of the compelling stories, but this one just didn't quite have it. There were a lot of moments that made both of us uncomfortable, so I'd recommend avoiding it.

I've been screened-in again for the DND Policy Officer Recruitment Programme. The questions are interesting and challenging, and I hope I'm up to the task. Wish me luck!

Have a good weekend!

Frere Jacques and Why Iran is Under Suspicion

This week French President Jacques Chirac gave an interview with the New York Times. It contained a couple really dumb statements, which are being seized upon by some quarters, and a couple things are actually brighter than Chirac is given credit for. He is no friend of ours, but even rivals can occasionally say things that make more sense than we'd like to admit.

Chirac stated that he thinks that an Iranian nuclear weapon wouldn't be that big of an issue. They may use it once, but then they'd be swiftly dealt with, so nothing to worry about, he says. "The fact of having a nuclear bomb — having one, maybe a second one a little later, well, that's not very dangerous. But what is very dangerous is proliferation."

Getting the bomb is dangerous because that means countries are proliferating nuclear weapons horizontally (i.e. increasing the membership of the "nuclear club"), and may inspire other countries in the region to do the same. Iran gaining and holding the bomb could inspire other vile regimes in the region to pursue nuclear weapons; imagine the thought of a nuclearized Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Syria. And this is why people are rightly up in arms about Chirac's statement tha having the bomb, no big deal. "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground." If possession is the necessary and sufficient precondition for proliferation, that by definition makes possession a big deal, so there is very much a danger "in the bomb it will have."

And in the meantime, potentially hundreds of thousands of Israelis would be killed because Iran wanted to fulfill its proclamation of "wiping Israel off the map." Chirac assumes too much; because France is a ruthless practitioner of realpolitik, he assumes that Iran would do the same, despite all the current evidence to the contrary. Rational thought has not proven to be a strong point in the Iranian regime's ledger sheet. Their mere pursuit of an atomic program that lacks transparency is not in their interests, as it has brought sanctions, condemnation, pariah status, and continued status in the axis of evil. The United States has yet to remove Tehran's distinction of being the "greatest threat to peace" today, and that is because the Iranians are pursuing a program in a fashion that leads the rest of the world to deem that it is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Chirac does get a couple of things right, though: "To maintain the regime of the mullahs, it needs to not be contested or threatened by the international community. And the international community, who is it? It's the United States." He is more right than he knows, because there is no "international community" beyond Washington and whatever ad hoc coalitions it can muster. France worked strenuously to prevent that international community from removing a brutal dictatorship on Iran's borders. It failed, and it lost one of its client relationships as a result. The new Iraq will never look to France for inspiration or assistance in times of need (though, sadly, it may look to Iran) because Iraqis remember France's complicity in keeping Saddam's regime alive. However, he is right to establish the current regime's survival on the basis of avoiding confrontation with the United States and any willing coalition. Should Tehran overstep in any venue and provoke confrontation, the mullahs will find that they have accelerated the elapse of the borrowed time the regime is already using. Granted, getting rid of a vile regime is the easy part, installing a legitimate successor is the hard part, but survival is the key factor in Iran's political calculations. Which leads me to my next point.

Chirac: There is no risk. There is the I.A.E.A. that monitors this. There is control. There is no risk.
Q: There is no risk?
A: None, absolutely none. You cannot take an electrical nuclear plant and make a bomb. It just doesn't work.

Having done a little bit of research into what states need to do to create a uranium-based atomic bomb, I can say that Chirac is absolutely correct in making this statement. It may be, taken out of context, a statement that causes alarm bells among people and prod them to suggest that Chirac is off his rocker. That may be true in other circumstances, but not in this one. You see, in order to produce weapons-grade uranium (U-235), it has to be highly-enriched to approximately 90% purity. The level of enrichment in uranium for nuclear energy is much lower, approximately 20-25% This something which is easily measurable and verifiable for the scientists of the IAEA. What Iran's obfuscation on the matter does, however, is make it very difficult for the IAEA to verify their claims that they are seeking only a nuclear energy program. The IAEA scientists have already discovered trace elements of weapons-grade uranium at Iranian facilities. Iran's prevention of certain inspectors only raises the cloud of suspectability.

If Iran wants to demonstrate that it is only pursuing a nuclear energy program, it is a very easy task to accomplish. Allow the inspectors to oversee and verify that all uranium activity is confined to energy. Deceiving them, attempting to cover up discoveries of HEU, and denying that the HEU even exists is not in Iran's vital interests. It was the same type of opaque process that cooked Saddam Hussein's goose. If the Iranians have nothing to hide, why are they hiding? Even France is reluctant to play the role of dictator babysitter on this one, and has been very involved in ensuring that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. They will not likely be able to rely on a French veto in the UN Security Council if it becomes necessary to forestall action against Iran to forcibly prevent them from fully developing a nuclear weapons capability.

The Chirac interview is an interesting one, and I do recommend that people give it a read.

Super Bowl Prediction

Colts win. Manning gets MVP for a huge performance against a tough Bears defence.