Quote of the Day

“Shame is the most effective form of compulsion in the case of professors who are shown to be incompetent.” – Stanley Rosen

NDP Election Strategy: Campaign With a Corpse

Well, that’s mean, I admit. But imagine if Harper were to refer constantly to Robert Stanfield or Paul Martin to Pierre Trudeau.

For the NDP, it’s the 1970s all over again (or perhaps mid-80s).

It’s pathetic that the 2 most common words coming out of Jack Layton’s mouth these days are, “Ed Broadbent,” former leader of the NDP (1975-89) who retired and then returned to serve in the House of Commons before retiring last spring.

Jack Layton frequently invoked Broadbent’s name during the English leaders’ debate. To the point that viewers could yell out, “Ed Broadbent” in anticipation of Layton doing it – and quite often stating his name at the same time Layton did.

Yesterday, Layton was in Yellowknife re-enacting a photo-0p with Inuit and sled-dogs that Ed Broadbent performed in 1980.

Considering 43% of Canadians can’t identify the leader of the NDP (subscription required), does Layton seriously think people under the age of 65 will remember Ed Broadbent? (ok, ok, that’s another mean thing to say. I have nothing personally against Broadbent and he retired from politics to care for his sick wife. My criticism is of Layton, not to Mr. Broadbent).

Swinging Supremely

Just in time for Xmas, the Supreme Court has handed its decision on swingers clubs in Quebec. According to the Supreme Court, there is nothing indecent about group sexual relations in a commercial business while others watch.

We have come to the point that even the elderly in the Court do not see the objectification of sex in these kinds of things:

Everyone going into the bars knew what to expect, she added, and at both clubs there was no evidence of anti-social acts or attitudes. “No one was pressured to have sex, paid for sex, or [was] treated as a mere sexual object for the gratification of others.”

The categorical assertion that “everyone knew” would suggest that the seven Justices who favoured the swingers clubs may have taken a little research trip to Montreal sometime this year. In some instances, people come to swap spouses with others for sexual purposes right on the premises, but Justice McLachlin does not see any objectification at all: it’s all out of the purest for of love.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin did raise the question of communicating venereal diseases. But she quickly found that venereal disease is as disconnected from decency as the judges are connected with most decent Canadians. It’s perfectly decent, in her view, to acquire a collection of venereal diseases at one of these swingers clubs and later to have the wider public pay for the treatment. There are no ethics involved in that either.

Crossposted from Civitatensis.ca

Paul Martin Confuses Morality with Science

Prime Minister Paul Martin called on US president George Bush to listen to the “global conscience.” At issue is support for the fairy tale of the Kyoto Accord, which is supposed to fix “global warming.” Ironically, if not hypocritically, Canada’s track record on the so-called green house gases is much worse than that of the United States, though the US does not support the Kyoto Accord.

The appeal to a global conscience assumes that there is a moral question at stake. What is more, it suggests that what the majority of people want, if there is a majority supporting Kyoto, is somehow a moral standard. Martin knows well that the science of Kyoto is at best questionable, so he has to make appeal to an imaginary global conscience. On real moral issues, however, it is the US president who should be inviting the Canadian prime minister to listen to a the moral conscience of the planet. There are only four countries who have granted homosexuals the privilege of marriage. Canada recently became one of them under Paul Martin’s leadership. All other countries of the world have either denied such privilege, or are not even interested in addressing the question. On the question of homosexual marriage, there is a well-established planetary moral conscience.

Given that homosexual marriage is a veritable moral question, not a question of science, is Prime Minister Martin willing to heed on homosexual marriage to the same global conscience that he has invoked on Kyoto?

Crossposted from Civitatensis.ca

New Ways Work

A little bit of money and some administrative creativity has slashed the waiting periods for hip replacements in Alberta from 47 weeks to about 5 weeks as a result of a new way of doing things.

Nobody expected such staggering results, said Steve Buick, a spokesman for Capital Health region, one of three health regions where the pilot project was tried.

“It’s the biggest single improvement in access to health care that I’ve seen in 10 years in the system,” Buick said.

Crossposted from Civitatensis.ca

Another Brick in the Wall

If Canada’s relation with the United States is all about protecting sovereignty, as Prime Minister Martin has said of lately in his vote-garnering attempts, then the opposite also applies. After all, the United States, as a state, has as much interest as Canada does in protecting its own sovereignty.

Enter the talk from US politicians about building a fence along the Canada-US border.

“We’re simply talking of having a real border and asking people when they want to come to the United States that they come in the front door.”

While the idea precedes Paul Martin’s electoral bravado against the United States, the notion of a border fence does show the potential effects that Liberal anti-American policy may have on Canada’s trade and commerce. So much for having a Liberal government that would put US-Canada relations back on track. The restoration of the relationship with our neighbour seems to have left the Liberal Party out of the same door through which addressing the democratic deficit exited.

Crossposted from Civitatensis.ca

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

Yesterday’s Calgary Herald editorial came out in support of Alberta forming its own provincial police, provided that the cost is “not unreasonable.” Frankly, even if it were to cost more than it currently costs for contracting out the Canadian federal police, the autonomous exercise of an existing provincial right granted by the constitution does not have a price.

If cost were the only determinant, one might suggest that the provincial government already duplicates far too much to merit its own existence and cost: it would be far cheaper to get Ottawa to rule over us in all areas. Alberta has to send the mounties home to keep the right in Ottawa, and must create its own police when the current contract expires in 2012. Nothing short of that will live up to the provincial motto of “strong and free.”

________

Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, December 18, 2005

Ontario has its own provincial police force; so does Quebec. A report issued by Alberta’s solicitor general this month now suggests establishing a more unified special-constable force: Implemented in their entirety, its recommendations would effectively take the province half way to a provincial police force.

Instead, the province should consider going the whole way, in anticipation of the contract it has with the RCMP coming up for renewal in 2012.

From the perspective of the citizen, there is much to commend it. The question is whether those same citizens, in their role as taxpayer, would find the terms acceptable.

Eight of Alberta’s major municipalities with roughly two-thirds of its population — Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Camrose, Coaldale, Lacombe, Medicine Hat and Taber — have municipal police forces, operating under the provincial Police Act. Law enforcement in the rest of the province is in the hands of the RCMP.

The RCMP deploys more than 1,900 officers in Alberta; the eight municipal police forces employ 2,700.

In addition, there are the 2,800 special constables who were the subject of the report, employed by 275 agencies. They work for provincial government departments, such as those managing fish and wildlife regulations, or vehicle inspections, as well as employers as diverse as health authorities, post-secondary institutions and municipalities.

The Solicitor General Department’s report reflects a government desire to “standardize conduct, training, performance, use of force, and visual identity for all levels.”

In other words, a province-wide force. It would deal with enforcement of matters as picayune as stray animals, as common as speeding, as necessary as court and prisoner security, protection services for the premier and visiting dignitaries, and as potentially dangerous as arresting people on outstanding warrants or apprehending armed wildlife poachers.

Extending the functions of this force to those handled by the RCMP would require only a commitment to pay for the trained personnel to do it. The needed funds are spent on the RCMP contract which, under this year’s provincial budget, rose to $153 million to hire 100 additional officers.

Continuing the RCMP contract would be a pleasing recognition of the role its predecessor, the North West Mounted Police, played in the settlement of Alberta. But Alberta also had its own police force from 1917 to 1932. It may be time to do so again. Alberta Agenda proponents offer valid arguments, that constitutional powers unused tend to atrophy. These alone would justify a provincial police service — as long as it was not unreasonably expensive to operate.

However, if Alberta is to reorganize its special constable force, anyway, there would be economies of scale from a single screening process for recruits for the single police academy, co-ordination of communications systems, and in procurement.

Likewise, while not assuming existing municipal forces would be automatically rolled into a new provincial police, any reforms should enable seamless transferability of personnel between them. This yields further benefits to police officers and their employers: flexibility in transfer and enhanced career prospects, to name but two.

The idea should be costed out, and seriously considered if attractive. It would not be wasted effort. At the very least, it might prove a useful bargaining tool in 2012.

© The Calgary Herald 2005

Alberta’s Economic Clout

If there’s still anyone who doubts Alberta’s economic clout, check this article on how energy stocks drive the TSE.

Son of Plame

There’s a storm brewing south of the border that should make for an interesting week to come. Follow the links. (via Instapundit)

Macleans Biased?

It seems strange that a nominally conservative poster like myself would choose to defend Svend Robinson in his inaugural post here at ThePolitic, but I couldn’t let the cover of the December 19 2005 edition of Macleans pass by without comment. For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure, the cover is a close-up photo of Svend (puckishly youthful at 53, by the way) with the sub-heading “Let’s Svend Him Packing”. The full text of the editor’s column is here.

The bulk of the article argues that Svend, with a history of lawbreaking (mostly protest-related) culminating in his 2004 conviction for the theft of a $21500 ring, is no longer fit for Parliament. Which, on it’s own, is a perfectly acceptable arguement.

But that’s not the point of the article. From the title onward, it’s clear that the intent of the editors was to persuade the people in Vancouver Centre to reject Svend at the polls. The language of the article frequently crosses the line between general politcal philosophy (in this case, what makes a citizen an unacceptable candidate for office) and advocacy against a specified political target. The most obvious example is the ad hominem attack that constitutes the final paragraph:

The presence of Svend Robinson in an election that has government ethics as a key issue is a blight on the New Democratic Party and an insult to the public at large. The voters of Vancouver Centre are obviously free to elect whomever they please. We trust them to see Svend Robinson’s opportunism for what it is and make a stand for higher standards of political, ethical, and legal behaviour. In other words, to send him packing.

Hmmm. “…higher standards of political and ethical” behaviour.

The editors acknowledge that the people of BC are free to elect whomever they please, and indeed they’ve re-elected Svend time and again over a 25 year period despite his history.

The difference is that this time Svend is running in Vancouver Centre against Liberal insider Hedy Fry, and not in Burnaby.

Elections Canada’s website has details about the long history of gagging “third party” spending. Apparently, it’s against the law for “third parties” (that is, political activists not aligned with a party) to spend more than $3000 in any one riding during an election.

How much do you think the front cover of a national newsmagazine costs? Is is appropriate for Macleans to be advocating against candidates in this manner during an election? Is anyone looking in to this?

« Previous Page — Next Page »