Let Haitians resettle to Canada!

Score a couple of more points for the Libs and for the Dippers:

We urge the government to expand those efforts by widening which family members can apply and speeding up the unification of adopted orphans with their new families in Canada.

I think they are on the right track.

As far as I am concerned, we should let anybody come in to Canada. Jason Kenney is wrong:

“Massive resettlement is not a solution to natural disaster. The solution is reconstruction, and we’re focused and dedicated to that,” Mr. Kenney said.

Kenney said other stuff too. He said that the government of Haiti would not appreciate it if all Haitians were permitted entry into Canada. Who cares what the Haitian government appreciates?? I certainly do not. As far as I am concerned, massive resettlement is a solution to this natural disaster.

Lorrie Goldstein posted his preferences and bias this morning:

There needs to be a limit on Canadian compassion towards Haiti.
—SNIP—
We cannot solve every global catastrophe by throwing open our doors to the victims.

I do not see why not. The vast majority of Canadian land is empty. If all of the global warming nonsense turns out to be true, well, more of the barren Canadian land will become habitable at affordable rates and Canadians will solve every global catastrophe by throwing open the doors. We will not be able to afford not to do so.

Also, the choice to fund reconstruction assumes that the purpose behind all of this foreign aid is to actually help the lowly desparate foreigners and not the governments nor the government cronies. That is a huge assumption and I am not sure what the motives of people like Jason Kenney truly are. He may have other goals to serve with his policy-making tasks. Who knows?

The problem with throwing money at reconstruction is that the question of whether reconstruction is even possible — that is, to suit the inhabitants — is never honestly addressed. Further, any discussion of the cost compared to resettlement is stifled too. Some people in Haiti may actually want to leave. Thus, the money sent to reconstruct the earthquake-prone land may be better spent. It is not like Canada is such a horrible place to live.

As far as I am concerned, if a reconstruction of Haiti is physically possible, then Haitians should do it themselves. They can move to Canada, save up some coin and go back to their homeland to reconstrct whatever they want. That is how honest compassionate reconstruction should be done.

Big Government vrs. The Virtue of Governing Oneself

I’m all for gun and property rights. But I can’t understand people that always want to get tough on crime, particularly with stiffer prison sentencing. Can’t they be more imaginative? Why don’t they buy a gun, then get involved in some group or another to elevate the character of young people or the otherwise dispossessed.

The political culture is such that we are subjects of a massive state apparatus and comforted with infinite means to entertain ourselves, but why such little appreciation for the responsibilities that come with citizenship? with looking out for your own self-interest, especially in the community where you live? taking pride in your own capacity for self-governance?

Such prison policy is bearing fruit south of the border and it is rotten! … Reform is needed, and as the New York Times reports, it’s becoming a bipartisan issue.

I watched Gran Torino for the first time last night. Great movie!

There is a scene in Gran Torino where Clint Eastwood’s character, Walt, is asked why he didn’t call the police instead of confronting a gang outside his house. Walt’s response, “Well you know, I prayed for them to come but nobody answered. … when things happen quickly like that, you have to react.”

When faced with any individual or social “problem,” be it crime, the need for some agent of welfare, or even some public works project or another, we need to consider how civil society engenders a much larger definition than Big Government prefers to accommodate. Big Government is not the natural result of civil society, rather, Big Government is what Max Weber called an “iron cage,” and we require a responsible citizenry to moderate its role in civil society.

Consider what John von Heyking writes in his insightful review of “It’s the Regime, Stupid! A Report From the Cowboy West on Why Stephen Harper Matters:”

And so Canadians have come to view their sovereign as the agent of “gift giving,” … This decadent regime has been rendered possible by a decadent Christian culture that has forgotten the distinction between compassion, which benefits bureaucrats (because the purpose of compassion is to feel good about oneself), and caritas, for which the language of costs and benefits are irrelevant (because the purpose of caritas is love for another). Subjects of the modern regime need to balance their interest-calculation with some pride, which Cooper describes as a “something that you hold on to without qualification as to whether it is in your interest to do so – otherwise there would be no ‘you’ to have an interest.” …

In other words, too many take Big Government to be the default solution to whatever ails them. And yet, there is no virtue, no individual dignity to be gained, in not taking responsibility for your own life.

Fantastic News: U.S. War Deserter Allowed to Stay in Canada

It’s not a final decision, but a federal court has ordered the Refugee Board re-consider the case of Skyler James (previously known as Pte. Bethany Smith).  Ms. James is a U.S. war resister, who was to have been deployed to Afghanistan as a mechanic.

I won’t get into all the arguments for allowing Ms. James to remain in Canada (I previously wrote about her case here), but for those of you who have missed this story, Pte. Smith was serving at Fort Collins.  A lesbian, she enlisted via the offensive and illiberal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, and was outed by her fellow soldiers.  Consequently, her life was threatened.

Under DADT, a soldier who is outed is to be granted a discharge.  The U.S. army, needing more bodies for their various wars, decided that could wait until after her tour… after she was shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who wanted her dead.

Until the United States repeals this sexuality-based caste system, Canada should welcome any deserters who were forced to flee after being outed.  In the meantime, I’m happy Ms. James is safe in my hometown.  I’m proud that my country is protecting her.  It is now up to the Refugee Board to stand up against injustice.

By the way, Kyle at Vogue Republic presents a good argument against DADT here.

Stay out of Cuba

Despite the contraction in the title, I like this National Post editorial: Don’t go to Cuba. Finally, some Canadians have the courage to publicly ostracize this vacation destination.

I have never been to Cuba and I have never wanted to go precisely because of their evil communist government. Everybody who spends their money in Cuba is subsidiizing the evil human rights abuses that occur there. Shame on you all.

Of What Meaning, Canadian?

There’s a new guide for new Canadians, Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship.  It’s a change from the document that used to be handed out.  It’s more demanding, and, arguably, more political.

The 62-page guidebook, years in the making, replaces the “anemic, slim, stripped-down” version crafted by the Liberals in 1997 with a “more substantial treatment of Canadian history and civics,” said Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute and among those consulted in the creation of the document.

Having not read the document, I cannot comment on the contents.  However, I fully support the principle.  It is demeaning to assume that new citizens can’t be expected to digest a robust document.  It is unfair to fail to provide them with an exhaustive account of the history and nature of Canada.  A document that demonstrates a healthy respect for the individual and the nation is the best tool we can offer our new Canadians as they build their lives in Canada.

Nonetheless, there is great room for impropriety in this document.  As a supporter of relatively open immigration (and fully supporting being open to refugees), but an opponent of institutionalized multiculturalism and grotesque patriotism (that which borders on, or becomes, nationalism), I am, naturally, concerned that this sort of document will be used to enforce a particular vision of Canada.

Any document we give to immigrants must outline what it has meant to be Canadian, but it could be awfully difficult to outline what it means to be Canadian.  What we need to teach new Canadians is that in liberal society, the individual is paramount; the individual is more important than the nation, than parliament, than the collective, than any particular ethnic group – the individual is more important than any concept or group that looks to subvert one’s personal autonomy.

But still we are left with the question, of what significance is it to be Canadian?  What is the essence of ‘Canadianism’?  Do we look to our founding, to the British North America Act, the last spike, D’Arcy McGee and the like?  Does it take into account the fur trade, the National Policy or the Quiet Revolution?  Does it reflect our newest ‘traditional’ values and institutions: universal health care, ‘peacekeeping’, or a charter that is younger than I?

Geez, is it now based in pop culture?  Does being Canadian mean Tim Hortons, Alexander Keith’s and This Hour Has 22 Minutes?

I submit that we are a nation without a sufficient identity.  Perversely, I think it is our pre-occupation with having, or obtaining, an identity that fosters this deficiency.  The roots of Canada – the societies of Britain and France, the aboriginals – are worth cherishing.  The incarnation and growth of this nation in the context of our southern neighbour, rather than in contrast to her, warrants pride.  The accomplishments of this young nation, so many of which achieved free from anxiety about a ‘national identity’, should have been enough to sustain us.

Is it our collective neurosis that defines us?  Is that the insight that we owe new Canadians?

Stelmach, Riders & Drivers: Weekend In Review

Just a few short points tonight:

First, I hear that Unsteady Eddy managed a 77% leadership approval tonight in Alberta, and that many APCs who are loyal to Stelmach believe that this puts the wind at their backs. Well, we here in Ontario made a similar mistake not so long ago too, and my warning to my Alberta cousins is that if you don’t correct the leadership problem, the electorate has a way of doing it for you!

Next, I won’t go into details here for obvious reasons except to say that my poor Hyundai Accent was hit on the driver’s side yesterday by someone who was running late to take a relative to get an H1N1 shot — now I know there’s been some sniping from both sides over the shot recently, but as at least one victim of the panic caused by this disease, I strongly urge everyone to calm down! Nothing circumvents road safety and it’s better to arrive late to an appointment than not at all!

On the bright side, the Accent protected me extremely well, and as much as I already loved my little Korean car, I’m extremely amazed by it now and highly endorse it to everyone out there. On the not-so-bright side, since yesterday I’ve witnessed about 20 separate cars in Waterloo region driving with downright criminal insanity (and I have passenger witnesses for these too!) — a car that almost clipped over a motorcycle in order to do a sharp 10 degree turn into the lane three spaces over; another bozo leaving the local Costco by pulling up to the right turn-only lane and then clipping a van in order to drive straight through into the parking lot across the way; and, the worst was my girlfriend and I seeing a car literally staring at us across the Westmount and University intersection tonight, attempting to turn righ (yes, it was driving in the wrong direction and would have to cut across the three eastbound lanes to do so). Perhaps it’s time to review just how flexible our licensing system is, given the responsibility of operating such a dangerous machine.

At least I end this week on a happy note, well…other than a surprise run-in to Christian Conservative today. Anyway, the Saskatchwan Roughriders, breaking a 33-year drought, become the CFL’s Western Division’s first place, regular season team this year. Congrats to the green Riders for a wonderful season, and a well-earned by next week. Being from Hamilton, and having a father who is a die-hard tabby fan, I can only hope that the Tiger Cats get their home field advantage for the next week tomorrow, and to see them in the Grey Cup this year.

Civilized People Can Be Rude

Jonathan has provided some very engaging commentary here and here. Following up on this theme of civility and objectivity in journalistic reporting, Jonah Goldberg has an excellent piece over at National Review Online:

… American democracy has always been a hurly-burly. More important, a lot of the complaints about incivility today are really complaints from the people in power or their supporters in the media, aimed at the folks who won’t shut up and get with their program.

And there’s something distinctly undemocratic about that.

The civility caterwaulers claim that Obama’s opponents are trying to “delegitimize” the president, often suggesting that such efforts are racist. But what some see as delegitimization, others see as criticism. What strikes me as truly uncivil is the effort to demonize critics of the president with racial bullying.

In fact, I think Obama really does have a problem with dissent. In August he said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way. . . . I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

On health care he’s been saying the time for debating his plan is over, even though the president didn’t even have a plan to debate.

Now his White House is targeting Fox News and urging other news outlets to ostracize it. Does any serious person in America believe that if Fox News were supportive of the president’s agenda, this White House would be bemoaning the network’s lack of objectivity?

Democracy is about disagreement, arguments. Citizenship in America requires speaking your mind. Indeed, it’s worth recalling that the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment always envisioned a partisan press. “Objective” journalism is a 20th-century confabulation, as alien to the Founders’ vision as transporter beams and time travel.

Civility came to mean politeness in the 16th century; before that it meant being a citizen. It seems to me that authentic civility requires some incivility.

Turning back to the interview with Conor Friedersdorf from the other thread, the following is an excerpt that raises significant questions.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of dreck that harms public discourse. I’d never want to be the arbiter drawing a definitive boundary between folks who add to the conversation and those who take away from it. That line is impossible for anyone to consistently and reliably discern. But it is possible to identify folks whose transgressions are so frequent, blatant and influential that one must either oppose them or stay silent as they corrode our polity’s primary means of testing ideas and deciding among them. I think it is important that this opposition is grounded in substantive arguments, that it avoids ad hominem attacks, that it is rigorous, and that it is intellectually honest.

As I argue in the other thread, ad hominem argument, be it rude or funny, is often the only way to check intellectual dishonesty at the door. Often it is necessary to take a swipe at people who are unwilling to face the truth. A well placed insult forces them to challenge why what you are calling them isn’t true, to make a come back, the result being that they either face the truth and the conversation continues, no doubt robustly, or they leave—good riddance. It is individuals of genuine civility who can take a hit and keep on coming; re: Juan Williams.

I’m not arguing that conservatives benefit from “echo chambers.” Hardly! I’m making the point that in any “political discourse” there are likely to be intellectual swindlers, however polite and well-intentioned, that want to narrow the choices we face into one way, THEIR way, whatever the cost. Conservatives are seeking to provide people with “A Choice, Not An Echo” and doing so will often infuriate their opponents (Many thanks, once again, to Kathy Shaidle for the link.), as we see now with the current White House attacks on Fox news.

To engage in democratic politics, it is best if one comes with some principles, broad shoulders, a quick wit, and the capacity to laugh at oneself.

U.S. War Deserter Should Stay in Canada

No, I don’t mean Rodney Watson, nor do I mean Kimberly Rivera.  I have little time for the pleas of those who join a volunteer army and then desert to avoid being a soldier.

I’m talking about Pte. Bethany Smith, now known as Skylar James.  Ms. James, gainfully employed in Ottawa, is a lesbian who willing joined the U.S. Army, adhering to the ludicrous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Sadly, her fellow soldiers felt no such compunction, and outed her.  She has since been subjected to harassment and death threats.

And, considering what happened to Barry Winchell, I’d be wary of being dismissive of those threats.

Ms. James played by the rules.  She joined the army, “didn’t tell”, and planned on serving her country.  Unfortunately, her country failed her.  The Army, according to policy (and basic human decency), owes her a discharge.  Her superiors said they’ll take care of the paperwork after she returns from her tour… after she is shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who, it is reasonable to believe, might seek her death.

But for now, she is in Canada.

It is bad enough that the U.S. Army has a de facto discriminatory policy.  It is bad enough that they treat homosexuals as lesser citizens, whose service to country is devalued.  Beyond all that, they actively and tacitly support the subjugation and malicious imperilment of these people.  They need to address this matter and, finally, allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving their country.

Until they do, it is Canada’s duty to protect those whose worth the United States has callously discarded.

(Note:  This post has been edited to correct an error in Ms. James’ name.)

What about Parliamentary Supremacy?

The only reason any Westminster system requires the services of a “supreme court” is to satisfy the condition of Locke’s separation of powers doctrine that there be a “Federative” branch of government to adjudicate disputes between different levels of government. With news today that HM The Queen has formally opened The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, devolution, at least, as taken a significant next step toward a respectable form of federalism.

Unfortunately, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, like The Supreme Court of Canada, is now a court with the insidious pretence that its justices are not political actors, be they now the wiser appointed and benign overlords of all the realm. As the website of the court now, boldly, proclaims:

Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They will sit for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions will extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.

For instance, in their previous role as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Justices gave landmark rulings on the legality of the Hunting Act 2004 under European law, and whether or not a schoolgirl could be prevented from wearing traditional cultural dress.

Since Magna Carta, the High Court of Parliament, as it were, has been—and let us hope it remains—the final arbiter between the “citizen” and the state. Consider that a “citizen” is a “citizen” explicitly because he is the “subject” of a State. And “subjects,” being subjects of limited means in comparison to the state, can readily be subjected to the injustices, intentional or not, of that state.

What The United Kingdom has lost is far greater than any advance for federalism would have warranted. It has lost the explicit recognition—at the very top, anyway—that adjudicating the law is always part and parcel of legislating the law.

It was for this reason that John Locke held the Legislative branch of government to be supreme over all others. What we call Parliament was a necessary public conversation between the Executive and those who write the law as well as interpret the law. Take one aspect out of the mix and you will get power run amuck; so much for the balancing act that a separation of powers doctrine is meant to provide.

But, anymore, few learned men consider reading Locke a worthy endeavour. For whatever reason—maybe the American revolution and the cultural dominance of The United States—Montesquieu’s formulation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government wins wider popular recognition; those who understand the consequences of putting his formulation into practice a much smaller constituency.

It was to temper “legislating from the bench” that, for centuries, by the Law Lords sitting in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the justice system of The United Kingdom tipped its hat toward Parliament. Being part of Parliament, the fact that the decisions of the Law Lords carried political consequence, that the adjudication of justice can, indeed, be effected by the idiosyncratic disposition and perspective of the adjudicators was lost on no one. The final court of appeal avoided even the appearance of being oracular.

New Labour seems to prefer change for the sake of change, especially when trying to win respectability for its love of big government. This is certainly not the first time it has looked across the pond and adopted the worst, the intellectually laziest, that Canada has to offer; be it the incoherent cult of “multiculturalism,” or, now, the larger, the more significant evolutions of our own constitutional history.

Possible honour killings in Kingston

The media are finally beginning to acknowledge the presence of an extra large, grey, four-legged creature with massive ears, a short tail and a hose-like nose in the room.  We’re even beginning to hear/read its common English name, albeit in quotations and/or preceded with the “so-called” adjective lest anyone dare to do something so un-Canadian as to make a judgment based on objective facts.  Yes, dear Canadians, the Kingston massacre is a so-called “elephant.”

It’s about as good as one might expect in The Multicultural Utopia, as Mark Steyn puts it, where the most grievous evil is to rationalize a significant problem with a particular patch or thread in the great multicultural fabric known as Canada.  Suggesting that the values of another culture have no place in Canada is worse than calling the premeditated murder of four Muslim women by their very own family for their “disgusting lifestyles” in Canada an honour killing.

As to why this is the case, we have Kingston Police Chief Stephen Tanner:

“In our Canadian society, we value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great country,” Tanner said. “These individuals (the dead women) had the freedom and rights of expression of all Canadians. Whether that was a part of a motive within the family based on one of the girls or more of the girls behaviour is open to speculation.” (Emphasis added.)

To which I offer, No, sir, Canadians do not and should not value the cultural values of everyone who makes up this great nation.

Canadians categorically reject the cultural values that underpin this massacre of innocent Muslim women.  Canadians reject the principles of shari’a law.  Canadians denounce Islamic rule.  Canadians abhor misogyny.  Canadians flatly and emphatically reject shari’a's provisions for justifiable killing.  Canadians reject the cultural value of honour killing, which is prevalent in Muslim cultures because it is arguably justifiable within Islam.

Does this mean we reject all Muslims?  Certainly not.  But Muslims who insist on exercising their rights under shari’a or living by that law??–Yes, we reject you because we reject that aspect of your culture.  Shari’a is illegitimate in this land.  It has no place here.  If you want to continue on that path then kindly get out and make your home in a place where shari’a is in full swing or be prepared to face our rule of law.

To be clear, Canadians value cultural values that do not usurp our rule of law.  The values of other cultures that reflect the spirit and principle of our values and laws, we accept and are glad to include.  Those that do not, we reject.  Immigrants who make their home here have a choice: leave their anti-Canadian cultural values behind and assume our values or face the Canadian rule of law, which is based on Canadian values.  To paraphrase Charles Napier, you build your funeral pyres and we’ll build a gallows.  In this case, you kill your daughters to preserve some sort of religious honour and we’ll lock you in prison for what bleeding-heart liberals consider a lifetime.  I prefer a gallows myself but that’s beside the point.

There is no such thing as an innocuous value.  Imported cultural values are either strengthening or weakening Canadian values.  We dare not include them all. It is ours to judge, and judge we must.  We are all-inclusive (read non-judgmental, tolerant, uncritical) to our own peril.  There can be no middle ground as it relates to shari’a and honour killings or the like.

It’s time Canadians and the media start saying so.  It’s time to clearly define what is and is not Canadian.  It is time for the demarcation of a Canadian identity.

« Previous Page — Next Page »