Time Immortal

Apparently, the Liberal Party of Canada leader is facing mounting pressure to step away from the party’s helm. Here’s hoping he doesn’t…but from the tone of the article, it appears more and more as though Stephane Dion will be shown the door if he doesn’t elect to walk through it on his own, and then soon.

[image:7566:c:s=1:l=x]

Bonus: I love the picture accompanying that article, in which a frankly hungry-looking Michael Ignatieff can be seen casting a menacing glance over the shoulder of a tired, worried-looking Dion.

[image:7566:l:s=1:l=x]With the acquittal of Mark Steyn by the BCHRT, the “Free Mark Steyn” logo became, for the moment, somewhat moot. I’ve removed it, and transferred its link to Binks’ “Steynian” site to the “Freespeecher” logo instead. (I also got rid of the “NOlympia” banner, given that the Olympic Games are now long over.)

But now there’s a reason to add a new logo in its place! Because it really does seem to be the case that it is in the best interests of the Conservative Party — and in the best interests of Canada, although I do not presume that those two categories overlap to any great extent — that Stephane Dion attempt to cling stubbornly to the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. This thing must transpire, the better to fracture and further drain the resources of the federal Liberals.

It’s all over but leadership race(s).

The final total gave the Conservative Party of Canada a tough-nut-to-crack minority with 143 seats, nearly double what the Liberal Party of Canada managed to win (only a mere 77 seats). Not quite the result my wife and I were hoping for, but not bad either. If nothing else, it would seem to be a vote of confidence on the part of the Canadian people — confidence in the Conservative Party’s plan for the country, in the direction they’ve led it in, and in the man at the helm. That’s the lowest level of popular support that the Liberals have had since…uhm…the formation of Canada, actually. That’s not something that Stephane Dion can survive, I would suspect…although it would seem that Dion expects to stay on as party leader.

I have to admit: I’m kind of hoping that Dion stays on in the role, or at least attempts to. Such a move would fracture the Liberals, probably irreparably. But I really can’t see him surviving long in the post: his party just lost 26 seats, mostly to Jack Layton’s NDP, and I’m pretty sure that the knives are being sharpened. There will be a leadership race soon enough, and the Liberals will put someone more…well…competent at the helm. I hate to frame it in such terms, but there it is: Stephane Dion was not an effective leader for his party, and it has cost them dearly. It could well be time for Michael Ignatieff to finally take over the party leadership. Then again, Justin Trudeau just got himself elected, and I could see Pierre’s boy throwing his name in the hat in a leadership race. Jay Currie has his money on Bob Rae.

Please to cringe now, good Reader.

Of course, the Liberal coffers are basically empty at the moment. This puts a very interesting spin on things, both in terms of the future prospects of the party itself, and on the tone that the Harper minority will set when Parliament resumes. It was the case, with this last election, that the Liberals weren’t well-equipped financially to fight an election. They’re in an even worse position now, and so will have to think very carefully about undertaking any voting effort which would see the Conservative government defeated on a confidence motion. The last thing they can afford is another election, no matter how badly they might want another shot at power.

I very much doubt they even have the money to hold a leadership race at present. That presents its own problems, given that Dion simply cannot stay on as leader if the party is to survive and recover. So what to do? We saw the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada die a couple of elections ago — could we be seeing the end of the Liberals as well?

That’s certainly one possibility — one hope, I might even say. As far as this election goes, the bleak future of the Liberals is one of the more interesting outcomes. As Jay Currie notes, they’ve basically been reduced to being the Toronto Party — that’s never a good sign.

There were a few notable upsets, too. Local to Edmonton, Rahim Jaffer lost the Strathcona riding to NDP candidate Linda Duncan, which came as something of a surprise (both CTV and the CBC had called that riding in Jaffer’s favour as of the time I went to bed). The big surprise for me was Garth Turner losing his seat — that was unexpected, but nice to see all the same. Karma’s a bitch.

(More than a few people were happy about Garth’s defeat. I also note that others observed, as I did, that the Elections Canada website went down — hard — yesterday evening.)

I’m not at all impressed with the fact that the NDP made some gains, although I suppose it was inevitable that it would happen. As Grace remarked to me last night, progressive Liberal voters wanting to flee from Green Shift and Dion were a shoe-in for the Dippers. That such people don’t have the best interests of Canada at heart is a side discussion. Still, it’s consoling to remember that Jack Layton’s people are still the fourth-place party in Canada; the Bloc Quebecois picked up more seats than them. I doubt that there will be a leadership race in the NDP as a result of this election…but one can always hope, can’t one?

Now, I mentioned that the stronger Conservative majority was a vote of confidence in the Conservative Party’s leadership and performance thus far, and I definitely stand by that opinion. At the same time, though, it should be noted that it was also a vote in favour of the status quo. It’s not likely that anything will change in the wake of the latest Harper victory, at least not in terms of shoring up the strength of the human right to freedom of expression. Section 13 of the CHRA will likely remain “on the books,” although there is some hope that the Young Offenders Act will be made more harsh.

Now, the only question that remains is how long this latest government will stand. A year? Two years? Longer? It would be strange to think that any minority government would survive the full legal duration of a term in office, but I suppose it’s possible. With the Liberals all but crippled — financially and at a leadership level — the Conservatives will have what amounts to an effective majority, though not an actual numeric one. That’s a condition that is not likely to clear in any expedient manner, either. I’m thinking it’ll be at least 30 months until the next election, if not 36.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Ooh…Dion won’t survive losing 14 Liberal seats in Ontario. Michael Ignatieff, anyone?

The Globe and Mail is warming up to Stephen Harper. I mean, they actually think he is qualified for the job of Prime Minister!

Of course, it’s not all rosy:

Certainly, he has been far too much a solo runner in the team game of politics. He doesn’t trust easily and so isn’t trusted much. He is prone to savage attacks on his opponents and detractors, such as his gratuitous characterizations of parliamentary critics as Taliban sympathizers or artists as rich gala-goers. He also shows an underdeveloped appreciation for the basic tenets of pluralism with his denigrations of the keepers of critical checks and balances in our political system, from officers of Parliament to members of the press.

But despite these personality traits, Mr. Harper has governed moderately and competently for nearly three years. He has not taken the country in dangerous new directions or significantly eroded the capacity of the government to act, when necessary, in the public interest. He has been side-swiped, at least on the emotional level, by an international economic crisis of epic proportions. But he has gotten the big things right.

So it’s kind of a bad thing, I guess, that he prefers to keep things within his own party and stick to his own ideological standards. Is that what the first paragraph is saying? Also, is it really a stretch to call someone like Jack Layton a “Taliban sympathizer” when said someone has advocated in favour of negotiating with the Taliban?

The big thing, though, is that even a Left-leaning rag like the Globe thinks that Harper is a “competent” leader who has “gotten the big things right.” Compared to the usual level of drivel being directed at the Conservative government, though, the Globe’s acknowledgement that Harper is doing okay comes across as a ringing endorsement. Now, if they could just run an article about how much of a goof Stephane Dion really is, I might consider reading the rag again for more than just the movie reviews.

Personally, I’m of the mind that if one is a “guest of the state,” one leaves one’s right to vote at the door. But in Canada, inmates still get to cast a vote in national elections, unfortunately. And here’s the kicker: Canadian inmates constitute a massive, Liberal-supporting voting bloc.

CTV’s Robert Fife discusses a voting block that the Liberals have in their pockets. Inmates in federal prisons are not just withholding their votes from the Conservatives, but strategically pooling their votes for Stephane Dion and the Liberals.

…

Who’s tough on crime? I mean, how can the Liberals have any credibility on crime when the criminals want them to win?

Of course, the Liberal Party of Canada didn’t really have much credibility on crime to begin with. Kateland recalls what Dion said during a debate with Harper, and it’s reflective of his party’s generally lenient attitude toward crime.

During the leadership debate Stephane Dion accused Stephen Harper of not trusting justices to judge. Canada.com carries this exchange from the debate:

On Harper’s proposal to toughen sentences for teenagers, Dion said, “I trust judges and you don’t. This is the difference. It’s not that you’re tougher on crime it’s that you want to deprive judges to judge and you want politicians to decide things like for instance to send a child, 14-years-old, away for life.

I cannot speak for Stephen Harper but I can state vociferously for myself that I do not trust the criminal court justices to not only judge, but pass judgment and sentence which are proportional to gravity of the crime committed.

In her article, she’s talking specifically about the same thing I linked to earlier — the disgustingly lenient sentence given to a group of guys who used a cell phone to record and share a video of their gang-rape of a young girl. Certainly, on that basis, there’s a strong reason to completely distrust the judgement of Canadian “justices.” Were it the only example, it might be unreasonable to assume as much. But it’s not the only example, only the latest example.

Time and again, Canadian judges hand out pitifully small sentences to people who have committed the most depraved sort of crimes. Slaps on the wrist are handed down for all manner of evils, from rape to murder, from theft to deadly negligence and inebriation behind the wheel of a car. A sentence of 21 months for rape is not a punishment, and it’s not justice: it’s a joke. That boy shouldn’t even be in possession of his own genitals anymore, nor should any of his accomplices.

The age of the perpetrator doesn’t really matter — what matters is what was done. And there’s no reason to go easy on anyone. Stephane Dion might lament the fact that a Harper government would try and pass legislation that would mandate tougher sentences for Young Offenders, but let’s be realistic: whether you’re 14 or 44, you don’t deserve an easy break if you commit a crime. That’s doubly true of the “big” crimes, like rape or murder.

But not according to Stephane Dion, apparently. Which is in keeping with the general character of his party’s record in office concerning this issue, I suppose — more than not, it’s the fault of past Liberal governments that we have such a piss-poor criminal “justice” system in Canada these days.

So it’s not exactly hard to see why prisoners might tend to be ardent Liberal supporters.

“Be vocal. Vote local.” — a new campaign slogan that Liberal Party of Canada candidate Marc Godbout has deployed on his election signs. And he’s evidently not the first Liberal candidate to do so.

The slogan has an unmistakable spin. People who might vote Liberal should not think about Stephane Dion or the rest of the national team. They’re irrelevant. They won’t be around by Halloween. So if a voter is thinking of not voting Liberal because of Stephane Dion, think again, because he won’t be a problem for much longer.

That can’t be a good sign.

Jay Currie has been busy, and deserves a ton of credit for breaking this story. Assists, as I understand it, go to Dr. Dawg and The Black Rod.

Briefly, what has transpired is this. Yesterday, Jay broke the story of Liberal Party of Canada candidate Lesley Hughes, who had for years been publishing Twin Towers conspiracy theories of an anti-Semitic nature on the internet. In one such writing, she asserted that Jewish businesses vacated the World Trade Centre in the days prior to the 2001 attacks.

(The “Jews were Warned!” meme is a fairly common one in the circles of those who insist that the most devastating act of Islamic terror perpetrated yet in North America was, in fact, an inside job or the work of the Israeli Mossad.)

Not twenty-four hours later, after initially defending his candidate and refusing to take action, Stephane Dion asked for, and received, her resignation from the electoral race in the Manitoba riding of Kildonan-St. Paul. This was a story that emerged, and was carried, almost entirely in the blogosphere — the mainstream media has been struggling to play catch-up.

And in a somewhat ironic twist, the Liberal Party’s “Team BC” website yesterday ran a story about an NDP candidate who is also a “troother” (e.g. a 9/11 conspiracy theorist), one Bev Collins by name.

Methinks that Jay has opened himself a rather large can of worms here. If you ever needed to see a quick demonstration of the power of the blogs, O Reader, look no further than this example.

Also: very sweet…I haven’t used the “Conspiracy nonsense” category in a while!

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

We’re…what?  Two days in?  And already, Harper has had to apologize to the Liberals for an image that appeared on NotALeader.ca (nice opening Flash animation, by the way…) — a site operated by a Conservative supporter that pokes fun at Stephane Dion’s hesitance as a party leader — of a puffin taking a crap on Dion’s shoulder.

But that wasn’t the only apology issued.  Dion had to apologize for an ill-advised comparison between Harper and Adolf Hitler (I invoke Godwin!) made by Liberal MP candidate Brent Fullard.

Two days into the campaign, and both party leaders have had to apologize for gaffes made by others.  It’s just a strange year for elections, I guess.

I see the Liberal election platform, at least as it pertains to crime, is off to a great (snort) start.

For reference, Dion’s proposal is to prohibit assault weapons.  Weapons of this nature — assault weapons are a sub-category of firearm — are already illegal in Canada (at least for private ownership; they are a sometimes necessary tool of the trade for police, and an obligatory tool of the trade for soldiers).

The Order of Canada has been hijacked by the left, in his view.

Jason Kenney, Canada’s Secretary of State for multiculturalism, says the Order of Canada has been “hijacked by a particular political faction that is not even making an effort to be neutral.”

Kenney is one of several MPs, Conservative and Liberal, who have denounced the appointment of abortionist Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada.

“If any good can come of this, it’s that Canadians will demand that the Order belongs to them and not to a small elite that simply reconfirms its own prejudices,” he said.

Kenney, however, does not see this award as politically partisan, noting that some Liberal MPs have also denounced the award. Manitoba NDP Premier Gary Doer has also come out against it. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton, however, both praised it.

Prime Minister has publicly distanced himself and his government from the process.

Personally, I think the Conservatives were a bit soft in their reponse to this appointment…but at the same time, what could they do? They don’t control the selection process, after all.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

After threatening to force an election over the federal budget, Stephane Dion’s Liberal Party decided today that the Opposition would not actually try and defeat the government on the issue.

See, the problem with making threats is…well, really, one should never really make threats. If one is going to imply that a certain action will have a certain consequence, one had better be ready to administer the consequence specified if the action is taken; to do otherwise, to back down in the heat of the moment, is nothing short of a failure, and communicates both a lack of resolve and an inability to stick to one’s professed principles.

The Liberal Party doesn’t want an election right now; I get that. It makes sense, given that the Liberals are currently polling somewhere in the vicinity of 10% less than the Conservatives in terms of national approval at present. But if that is in fact the case, the last thing that will work to the Liberal Party’s advantage is meaningless bluster by its leader. People will look at the Liberal threat to force an election, and then will look at the way that the Liberals backed down from the threat when the budget was tabled, and will see a party with a lack of resolve and poor commitment to its principles. And all the talk about this budget being a “watered down Liberal budget” does little to deflect that image — it’s like the scrawny kid calling out “yeah, you’d better be afraid!” to the bully whilst standing in the shadow of the teacher that has just shown up on the scene.

I’m dead tired this morning, so this will kind of just be a list of things that I noticed on my morning browse through a few parts of the internet. Regular posting will resume tomorrow, ideally.

Apparently, the Milky Way is twice as thick as was previously thought — 12,000 light years, instead of 6,000. That’s kind of interesting, admittedly, although also rather “ho hum” — given the massive distances we’re talking about here, what’s a factor of two? Apparently, the researchers at the University of Sydney were just doing some basic fact-checking on internet-available data and realized the error after a few hours of computation. Guess it just goes to show: science is never 100%.

Moving on to more terrestrial matters, it appears that Danish “youths” — “mainly with immigrant backgrounds” — are burning things again, mainly cars, but also schools and trash bins. Officially, it’s not clear what caused the riots to trigger. Personally, I’m thinking that this is another case where we can strike out the words “immigrant youths” and replace them with “Muslims.” Probable cause? Here’s one guess:

[image:347:c:s=1:l=x]

(In Soviet Russia, hat tips you: RightGirl)

Speaking of Terrorism (since really, what else can we call it when Muslims are rioting and burning things?), the possibility is emerging that those undersea cables that got cut, thereby denying Internet access to millions of users across the Middle East and Africa, may have been destroyed in an act of sabotage, not in an accident as previously thought.

I hope nobody is too surprised by that.

In a follow-up to yesterday’s post about demographic winter, I see that Vox Day has added his own thoughts on the phenomenon to the virtual din.

You can’t completely grasp the extent of Europe’s post-Christian decline until you walk through the ghost towns of Italy, populated by no more a dozen elderly women and one old man sleeping in the sun. It’s not something that any tourist is going to see in Florence, Venice or Rome, much less Milano, but go outside the tourist tombs and the desolation of demographic winter is impossible to miss. And the imported African hookers scattered along the truck routes in the countryside are hardly adequate compensation for what were once famously vibrant family units.

There’s a large and spectacular church on the outskirts of a town near which we like to wander. Its doors are only unlocked for an hour or so every month, because despite its gorgeous interior architecture and painted ceilings, there’s not only no one around to attend it, there’s not even anyone left to visit it.

There is no cause of the demographic decline that is now afflicting much of the West that has done more to exacerbate the problem than secular progressivism and related ideologies. Put plainly, the societies we have built for ourselves (and, indeed, most human societies in general) are predicated on the expectation of a populace that maintains an almost “Catholic” birthrate — an average of 2 to 3 kids per woman. Our present fad of 0 to 1 kids per woman, and then usually one “designer” baby at age 35 (I shamelessly crib Mark Steyn’s phrasing here) is, quite frankly, insufficient to sustain Western society. To keep up our end, we need immigration.

That will, I think, be our untimely end.

Should Canada require its immigrants to “earn” their citizenship?

In the past, simply having lived in Britain for a sufficient length of time was enough to qualify a person for citizenship there. Now, a move is afoot to have immigrants “move on” through a system that encourages citizenship by encouraging the adoption of national traditions and values (possibly at the expense of the traditions and values those immigrants have brought with them from the “old country”), at the end of which they may achieve citizenship…or may be asked to leave, if in fact they do not integrate satisfactorily.

Methinks we need something like that in Canada.

According to the Associated Press, pro-lifers and other ‘domestic’ extremists account for “most of the damage” from terror-type attacks committed on American soil, to a larger degree than even Islamic terror.

As a pro-lifer, I’m pretty accustomed to having all manner of lies told about me and my beliefs — it comes with the territory. But the above assertion is pretty egregious, if somewhat easily refuted. Just for context, Muslim terrorists killed nearly 3,000 people in one day back in 2001, and destroyed two of the tallest skyscrapers in America in the process. Since 1973 (the year of Roe vs. Wade), misguided pro-lifers have killed just seven people in the U.S.

But clearly, those pro-lifers account for “most of the damage” done in acts of terror on American soil. The newsman says so!

Ezra Levant remarks that since it’s clear that Stephen Harper is gunning for an election, the Conservative government might as well try passing a few different pieces of increasingly more ambitious legislation, all via confidence motions, until Stephane Dion finally slips up and stops trying to avoid bringing the government down.

Gun control, the Wheat Board, tax cuts — and how about a gentle amendment to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

The irony is that last bill wouldn’t be controversial at all. Other than a lone Liberal lobbyist who hasn’t been in the party’s good graces for four years, and a fringe ethno-political special interest group, I don’t think anyone in the country would even consider such an amendment controversial.

As they say in the funnies…”it’s just crazy enough to work!”

And speaking of pro-life issues, the ladies of ProWomanProLife are suggesting contacting the Governor General directly to let her know that Henry Morgentaler does not deserve the Order of Canada. Fully 85% of online respondents to the Globe & Mail’s poll on the issue said “no,” and while that can hardly be called a truly “representative” number, I think it does indicate rather clearly that a majority of Canadians think that giving Morgentaler this sort of official recognition is a very bad thing.

The PWPL ladies also provide the names of the various people who sit on the “independent” advisory council that considers nominations for the Order of Canada.

Update: Suzanne Fortin sends in the following additional information by email. Here’s the process one can follow to contact the Governor General’s office:

It’s easy.

First call the Governor-General’s Office. Phone numbers:

Ottawa: 613-993-8200

Rest of Canada: 1-800-465-6890

You will get a receptionist.Ask to speak to Madeleine Proulx (pronounced “Prew”). She deals with the Order of Canada. When I phoned today, I got a voicemail and I have been told by another pro-life caller that calls about Henry Morgentaler are being re-directed to her voicemail. State your name. Tell her that you want to register your objection to Henry Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada. State the reason why. Please try to be neutral in your tone– calling him a bloodthirsty murderer probably won’t gain us a lot of credibility. I stated that he’s a symbol of inequality as he is the reason that unborn children have no legal status today and that I believe in the equality of all human beings, and that he fought this struggle in my name as a woman, and I resent that.

And that was it.

If you’re a pro-lifer, O Reader, or even if you aren’t but nevertheless think that Henry Morgentaler doesn’t deserve the Order of Canada, I encourage you to follow the steps above. Be civil and be articulate, and choose your words carefully. Calling him a murderer with blood on his hands might seem like a reasonable objection to raise, but it’s also a very good way to ensure that your phone message gets ignored. Present your case fairly and without appeal to emotion or horror, and it will be listened to.

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Canada, Catholicism, Censorship, Crime and Punishment, Immigration, Islam, Might just be interesting, Politics, Religion, Secularism makes you stupid, Sex & Reproduction, Social Issues, Space - the final frontier, Terrorism, The Interwebs, World News
Tags: Africa, America, Associated Press, birthrate, Britain, Canada, Canadian Human Rights Act, Catholicism, CHRA, Christianity, citizenship, Conservative Party, demographic decline, demographics, Denmark, Europe, Ezra Levant, Florence, Governor General, Gun control, Henry Morgentaler, HRC, Immigration, internet, Islam, light year, Mark Steyn, Middle East, Milano, Milky Way, Muhammed cartoons, Order of Canada, pro-life, progressivism, Roe vs. Wade, Rome, science, Section 13, secularism, Stephane Dion, Stephen Harper, Terrorism, University of Sydney, Venice, youths

Support for M-446 is “huge”

February 15, 2008

I interviewed Keith Martin again today. He said support within the Liberal caucus for his motion is “huge.”

Stephane Dion has not talked to him about it, or asked him to withdraw it. Only a couple of Liberal members raised concerns, but no one has asked him to remove the motion.

“There is enormous support within caucus and across party lines,” he said.

Stay tuned.

P.S. Check the Dion link, because the one time he is on the record talking about the Martin motion, he is not in favor.

Good to hear.

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Canada, Censorship, Law, Politics
Tags: Bill M-446, Keith Martin, Liberal Party, Stephane Dion

The Liberals walk out on a confidence vote

February 13, 2008

The government motion was intended to force the Senate to vote on the omnibus crime bill. The motion easily passed, 172 to 27, after the Liberals basically walked out on the proceedings.

The government had previously stated that this vote would be considered a confidence motion.

Which, I think, is interesting. Okay, obviously, Harper and co. were doing a bit of political grandstanding, but I’m wondering why the heck the Liberals walked out. At best, it makes them look soft on crime by choosing not to vote for or against this motion, which pertained (again) to the passage of new, and tougher, crime legislation. At worst, it makes them look afraid — afraid, that is, to face the possibility of an election. That’s measurably worse than being soft on crime; politically, that’s blood in the water.

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Canada, Politics
Tags: Canada, confidence vote, Conservative Party, Liberal Party, Senate, Stephane Dion, Stephen Harper

Riding the Failboat

February 11, 2008

Why does it not surprise me that the Liberal Party’s latest “plan for Afghanistan” fails to address the key issue facing that country? Stephane Dion’s latest brain flash is, apparently, that Canada should continue to provide aid to the Afghan people, but should stop taking any role in “rooting out” the Taliban.

Key details of the proposal are as follows:

• Fix the Canadian combat end date at February 2009.
• Extend the military mission by two years for training and security duties.
• Allow any military operation except “search and destroy” missions against the Taliban.
• Give NATO immediate notice that Canadian troops will withdraw in 2011.
• The Liberal plan would also spell out proposals for development and diplomacy.

Now, to be fair, most of these things that Dion and his party are proposing are good things, things which would benefit Afghanistan. But they will only benefit Afghanistan if Canada takes an active role not only in them, but in continuing military operations against the Taliban, whose primary goal is to destabilize the fledgling Afghan government.

The proposal is, in summation, both cowardly and disgraceful, and mocks the sacrifices that Canadian men and women have already made in trying to help get Afghanistan on its feet. Canada has taken a lead role — a pace-setting role — in hunting down the Taliban insurgents that have been trying to overturn all that has been established in Afghanistan; for us to abandon that now in favour of the vague pursuit of “security” not only makes no sense, but insults what we’ve had to pay, in lives and in blood, to bring the Afghan people as far along as we have.

Steve Janke spells out some practical considerations:

According to Stephane Dion, the right strategic move is to have soldiers supply security to NGOs and local workers building schools in Afghanistan.

For the Taliban, education is a symbol of all they oppose. Ignorance is what they want, so schools are a likely target.

Without Canadian troops aggressively moving through the countryside, the Taliban can quickly move in close to towns and cities.

When does security cross the line into combat?

Do the Canadians enforce a quarantine zone around the towns? But then isn’t that what they’re doing now, just on a larger scale, throughout the entire province of Kandahar?

Does such a “security” cordon stay only as long as there is a reconstruction project underway? Once the school is built, do the soldiers leave?

Then what happens? The Taliban stroll in, torch the school, murder anyone who helped the reconstruction teams, and stroll out?

So maybe the Canadians continue to provide security after the reconstruction team leaves. But what if the Canadian troops learn of Taliban force massing for a raid? Remember that in all this time, Canadian commanders have probably established some level of trust with the locals, who in turn are providing intelligence to our forces.

Do we engage in “proactive” security? Do we send a force to engage the Taliban? But that’s combat and that’s no longer allowed? Does this mean that Canadian troops will maintain static positions while the Taliban finishing collecting a force together? Does that mean the Taliban will be allowed to pick the time and place and manner of the attack, knowing that the Canadians are not allowed to fire the first shot?

That can’t be right, but then what does “no combat” mean? Does it mean the Canadians leave at the first hint that they’ve been outflanked, which is when the first Taliban is spotted peaking over the nearby ridge?

But that doesn’t make sense either. What sort of security is that?

Fortunately, I can’t see this plan getting implemented, but that doesn’t mean I’m not staggered by it; are the Liberals really so out of touch with the realities “on the ground” in Afghanistan that they think that Canadian troops can just withdraw from an active combat role, and that said withdrawal will have no negative effects on the stability of the Afghan government and the safety of the Afghan people?

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Canada, Just Plain Dumb, Military, Politics, War, World News
Tags: Afghanistan, Canada, Kandahar, Liberal Party, NATO, Stephane Dion, Taliban

The Human Rights Act doesn’t apply to Natives

February 8, 2008

Did you know that, O Reader?

…But the surprise came from Duffy himself: he reminded viewers that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to Canadian Indians. Right now, section 67 of the CHRA explicitly exempts Indian reserves from the application of the law.

This has been a long-time grievance of Aboriginal women, not because they have a hankering to file complaints about “hurt feelings” under the (recently-added) “hate speech” provisions of the Act, but because there has historically existed on many Indian reserves significant, real discrimination — such as the wholesale disenfranchisement of women who marry non-Indians, cutting them off from government funds and other rights as band members. Unlike for the rest of us who live in a free society, the libertarian solution to discrimination — simply move on to another restaurant, apartment, job, etc. — doesn’t work when the entire economy, and all property, are owned communally and are apportioned by fiat by chiefs and councils. That’s how it works under Canada’s Indian Act.

And guess what? Just last week, Liberal MPs tried to delay a Conservative initiative to extend the Canadian Human Rights Act to Indian reserves. Liberal Anita Neville showed the soft bigotry of low expectations, arguing that Indians just aren’t culturally ready for the kind of laws that apply to the rest of us.

Ms. Neville said there’s “a real ideological divide” over the issue of individual versus collective rights in the repeal legislation. “There doesn’t seem to be, on the part of the government, a willingness to respect the tradition of collective rights for First Nations on reserve.”

So, in the same week that we have Stephane Dion demanding that his MP, Keith Martin, rescind his private member’s motion to remove the “hate messages” provision of the CHRA, Dion’s MPs are blocking the entire CHRA from applying to hundreds of thousands of Canadian Aboriginals.

Hypocrisy from the Liberal Party? Perish the thought!

On a more serious note, however, I was actually unaware of the “exemption” provided under the CHRA for Natives. Personally, I think that’s absurd that this is, in fact, the case, and Ezra Levant enumerates a number of very real, and very good, examples why that is (above). Bigotry does not just flow one way, and there can be an immense prejudice on reservations against those who “go outside” the reservation in some way (the issue of marrying non-Natives is one example). Many people on reservations are very disenfranchised, precisely because of these reasons. Many people on reservations are denied basic human needs, and basic human rights, by usurious and greedy band councils.

I’m not saying that Natives should file more human rights complaints (if in fact they could) — the tribunals have to go, and nobody should patronize them. But the tribunals are one small part of what the CHRA deals with, and many of its other provisions are both relevant to the situations on many reservations, and also necessary tools for combatting those situations. And it’s shameful that Canada does not extend the legitimate protections of the CHRA to the Native people of this country.

Doubly shameful, of course, is that the Liberal Party has been attempting to block a Conservative Party attempt to extend the CHRA to include Natives and the reservations. Levant asks:

So which is it? Is the Canadian Human Rights Act so sacrosanct that not even a single section can be amended? Or is the Act so unimportant that Canadian Aboriginals can be denied all of its provisions for years to come? Mike Duffy pointed out this contradiction today; I wonder if any other journalists will follow up.

Personally, I very much doubt any of them will — our media is, as a general rule, terrified of printing anything that might result in a swell of support for Stephen Harper’s government. Which is a shame, because the hypocrisy of the Liberals over this issue is staggering.

Update: Welcome, Steynians and FreeDoMinions!

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Canada, Censorship, Law, Social Issues
Tags: Aboriginal, Anita Neville, Bill M-446, Canadian Human Rights Act, CHRA, Conservative Party, Ezra Levant, First Nations, Indian Act, Keith Martin, Liberal Party, Mark Steyn, Mike Duffy, Native, reserves, soft bigotry of low expectations, Stephane Dion

“Is free speech worth so little, Mr. Dion?”

February 7, 2008

Stephane Dion is trying to stifle Liberal Party MP Dr. Keith Martin and his private members bill, M-446, which would (if passed) see Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act struck down. That’s the section of the Act that basically informs the creation of the various human rights commissions (HRCs) in Canada, and which gives them their mandate for Censorship.

His concern, and ours, was sparked by the recent uproar over human-rights commission cases brought against magazine and Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant over publication of material some Canadian Muslims found offensive.

How sad that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has asked [Keith Martin] to withdraw his motion. Whatever brand of politics Dion is playing with freedom of speech and of the press, he should stop until he can answer noted civil libertarian Alan Borovoy. The problem with using human-rights commissions in free-speech cases, Borovoy notes, is that unlike in the Criminal Code’s hate-speech law, “there is no requirement for an intent to foment hatred and no defence for truth or reasonable belief.”

Is free speech worth so little, Mr. Dion?

Using this blunderbuss of intimidation against any group that feels offended by anything will chill free expression in the media and public affairs. Instead of trying to block Martin’s proposal, [Stephane Dion] should get behind it.

Martin got the issue exactly right: “We have laws against hate crimes, but nobody has a right not to be offended.” The Human Rights Act section in question “is being used in a way that the authors of the Act never envisioned.”

Censorship of does not belong in Canada. Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is not only an affront to the human rights of every Canadian, but it antithetical to the concept of a free, democratic, Western nation. It has to go.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Catholicism, Censorship, Islam, Law
Tags: Alan Borovoy, Canada, Canadian Human Rights Act, Censorship, Ezra Levant, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, HRC, Islam, Keith Martin, Maclean's, Mark Steyn, Section 13, Stephane Dion, Western Standard

Sometimes left-wingers get it too

January 22, 2008

“We recognize the conflict in Afghanistan as a liberation struggle, waged by the Afghan people and their allies, against oppression, against obscurantism, illiteracy, and the most brutal forms of misogyny. It is a fight for democracy, and for peace, order, and good government. It is also a struggle waged by the sovereign Government of Afghanistan, a member state of the United Nations, against illegal armed groups that seek to overturn the democratic will of the Afghan people. In Afghanistan, the great global struggle for the recognition and protection of basic human rights � universal rights - is being waged with a particular and necessary ferocity. We cannot and must not retreat from that struggle.”

And the Manley Commission recommends that Canada renew its commitment to Afghanistan and extend the mission deadline past Febrary 2009, possibly taking it into 2011 if needed.

“We often seek to define Canada’s role in the world. Well, for whatever reason, we have one in Afghanistan. Let’s not abandon it too easily,” Manley wrote last fall in a Canadian political journal following a return visit to Afghanistan in May 2007.

“But let’s use our hard-earned influence to make sure the job is done right.”

It’s really nice to hear this sort of level-headed honesty coming from a former of Canada cabinet minister (John Manley), although I imagine that is somewhere blowing a fuse over this.

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Canada, Military, Politics, War
Tags: Afghanistan, Canada, democracy, illiteracy, John Manley, Liberal Party, misogyny, oppression, Stephane Dion, United Nations

Stephane Dion is in hot water over his Pakistan remark

January 18, 2008

For suggesting that NATO forces should intervene in Pakistan, the leader of Canada’s is taking a lot of flak. Rightly so, given that his statements were not only hypocritical (given his advocacy for a Canadian military withdrawal from Afghanistan), but also highly offensive (from a diplomatic standpoint).

“He has managed to, in one breath, demonstrate his complete ignorance and poor judgment about the most important foreign policy issue for Canada, while at the same time insulting a critical ally in the war on terror,” said Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity.

Mamoona Amjed, press attache to the Pakistan High Commission in Ottawa, also issued a sharply worded statement, saying Dion’s comments show a lack of understanding of on-the-ground realities, and insisted no foreign troops would be allowed to operate in the country under any circumstances.

It also said Pakistan is an equal partner in the fight against terrorism and is doing all it can to counter insurgent activity on its soil. “The price paid by Pakistan being a frontline state cannot be undermined by certain irrational comments,” it concluded.

Dion said he was “very, very surprised” by the way his comments were reported.

He insisted that all he was saying is that NATO countries should apply diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to have its military deal more forcefully with Afghan insurgents who take advantage of the porous border between the two countries to evade NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if Stephane Dion does not know the difference between “NATO forces” (his words, not mine) and a diplomatic mission, he’s even less qualified to be a leader than he has ever seemed to be.

NATO is a military alliance, not a diplomatic entity. That’s basic knowledge for a Social Studies student in high school. It should be basic knowledge for any man (or woman!) who wants to become Prime Minister of Canada, as well as for any man or woman who leads a national-level political party in Canada. When someone talks of sending “NATO forces” into a region, he or she is not talking about diplomatic envoys; he or she is talking about troops and tanks, airplanes and (if applicable) warships.

It speaks, I think, volumes about just how unfit for his leadership role Stephane Dion truly is that he made these comments in the first place, and that he is now attempting to backpedal by hiding behind the lie that he was talking about diplomacy. Does he suppose we’re all gullible morons? Or does he genuinely have such a poor understanding of international politics and treaties that he doesn’t know what NATO is?

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Canada, Politics, War
Tags: Afghanistan, Canada, Jason Kenney, Liberal Party, Mamoona Amjed, multiculturalism, NATO, Ottawa, Pakistan, Pakistan High Commission, Stephane Dion

« Previous Entries

Pages

• Answers from a Catholic
• Blogrolls
• Contact Me
• FAQ
• Mailbox
• Media
• Support Time Immortal
• Tags

Search

Navigation

• My Gallery
• My Store
• Grace's Blog
• Ken and Grace

Authors

• Count Roland
• Grace Hynek
• Kenneth Hynek
• Simon Kully

Countdowns

• Grace and I have been married for a year!
• We have a beautiful baby girl!

RSS Feeds

• Subscribe in a reader

Edmonton Weather

If this thing reads above 25 C, I'm probably melting.

Advertising

Categories

• 21st World Jamboree (4)
• Adventures in Transit (14)
• Alberta (75)
• Anti-Semitism (33)
• Asteroid overdue (19)
• Battlestar (23)
• Canada (522)
• Catholicism (264)
• Cats (12)
• Censorship (235)
• Classes and Studies (2)
• Climate Tomfoolery (84)
• Computers (74)
• Conspiracy nonsense (6)
• Cooking (4)
• Crime and Punishment (150)
• Cycling (1)
• Drugs (9)
• Edmonton (55)
• Education (40)
• Entertainment & Celebrity (121)
• Evolutionary Creation - a Review (1)
• Evolutionary Creationism (16)
• Family (9)
• Food (26)
• From Kenneth Hynek (101)
• From the Cell Phone (59)
• Funny Ha Ha (105)
• Gallery Stuff (6)
• Gaming (15)
• Health (118)
• History (118)
• Holidays (30)
• I hate Nexopia (3)
• I question the utility (11)
• Immigration (26)
• Industry (9)
• Islam (404)
• It's 'ok' when 'victims' hate (3)
• Just Plain Dumb (98)
• Law (188)
• LOL of the Week (22)
• Lolcats (15)
• Long live the Queen (1)
• Mea culpa (8)
• Men and Women (102)
• Might just be interesting (34)
• Military (36)
• Mixed Chorus (5)
• Music (7)
• My lovely wife (38)
• Names to never forget (7)
• Nature can kill you (2)
• News (68)
• Of course I'm being facetious (4)
• Off the Cuff (23)
• Personal (76)
• Philosophy (129)
• Photography (45)
• Photoshop (5)
• Pic of the Day (738)
• Politics (379)
• Racism (17)
• Reader Mail (158)
• Recipes (1)
• Religion (310)
• Rovers (14)
• Sci-Tech (139)
• Scouting (17)
• Secularism makes you stupid (53)
• Sex & Reproduction (252)
• Social Issues (260)
• Sometimes God isn't so subtle (8)
• Space - the final frontier (25)
• Terrorism (119)
• That's…weird (20)
• The gun control myth (5)
• The Interwebs (143)
• The kidlet (16)
• Theology (92)
• Those silly atheists (164)
• Ultima (19)