Let her cover her face

I am 100% against the offensive and oppressive edict from the Conservative government that muslim women who, as an act of faith, choose to cover their faces must remove their niqab to take the oath of citizenship.

I have heard no good argument in favour of this measure. There are other ways of confirming identity, and their are other ways to accommodate the very few new Canadians with this particular religious conviction. This move is based neither in principle nor in necessity. The Tories have an axe to grind, and they don’t care if they chip away at our freedom of religion.

The Future of Canadian Conservatism

Over at my other blogging home, my colleague Scott H. Payne has been having a running discussion on the future of the Canadian left.  It’s been interesting, but it’s been leaving me interested in getting some thoughts on the future of the Canadian right.  Well, up stepped our very own Mark Peters, with some thoughts on where conservatism needs to go.

I’m still mulling over Mark’s thoughts, but he definitely makes some good points.  Feel free to pop over there and leave a comment, or start a parallel discussion here.

Tories Deny NRA Involvement in Scrapping Gun Registry

Or so the CBC says.

In other news, Tories continue to deny that they beat their wives.

Contempt for Parliament from Thee but not from Me

I don’t have much use for any of the political parties right now.  I’m rather ticked off with both the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it’s the NDP who have particularly irked me the past few days.

I don’t have an issue with them refusing to buy in to the agreement on the release of documents relating to the detainee scandal.  I’m willing to believe that’s a principled opposition stance… I’m inclined to think it’s more partisan gamesmanship, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt.  The NDP certainly have reasonable cause for concern.  We have a government that has been trying to keep the entire matter quiet.  If I was in opposition, I’d be wary that they’re suddenly willing to have an open investigation.

Their decision spawned some typical partisan sniping:

[Liberal house leader Ralph Goodale] also suggested that the NDP’s decision to back away from the deal came as no surprise “because they just didn’t seem to be engaged in the reality and the substance that was involved here.”

Whether they were fully engaged or not doesn’t really absolve the other parties for behaving like children.  Anyway, it’s Ottawa, and a little childishness is to be expected.  Regardless, any sympathy I had for the NDP disappeared in but a few days.

“We’ve got to make sure that Karla Homolka doesn’t get a pardon and we want to work with the government to find a way to make sure that happens,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

I guess a principled stance is only worthwhile as long as it doesn’t preclude them from getting their vitriol on.  As the above quotation demonstrates, the NDP (unwilling to bend on the document issue) will sign on to whatever vengeful policy the Conservatives bring forward – no matter how ill-conceived such a manoeuvre – as long as it allows them to enforce their particular version of justice.

The Conservative party were found in contempt of parliament for their handling of the Afghan detainee file.  The NDP has shown that they don’t have much more respect for the parliamentary process.  So, dear NDP, the next time a principled stance is assumed to be political opportunism, this is why.

Maxime Bernier: The Conservative Party’s Last Hope?

No, I’m not asking if he’s the only one who can save the Conservative Party; I’m asking if he has the potential to end all hope for the party.

The scuttlebutt is that Mr. Bernier is angling to take a run at the Conservative leadership.   Recently, he has made some high profile speeches laying out potential economic policies.  He spoke about freezing public spending, and then eliminating corporate taxes.  So far, so good.

Then, writing in National Post on Tuesday, Maxime Bernier admitted that he has gold fever:

I believe that within a few years, we will need to hold a serious debate about returning to the gold standard.

His article is titled, ‘Inflation should be 0%’.  It’s a mish-mash of folksie (non-)wisdom and economic illiteracy.  He begins by arguing for 0% inflation, moves to supporting deflation, and backs it all up by noting that computers have dropped in price but people still by them.

Seriously:

In fact, there is nothing mysterious about the effects of lower prices. Think about computers. Fifteen years ago, they were big, not very powerful, had few gadgets, and cost a lot more than today. Prices in the computer business have been going down all the time since then.

Have people stopped buying computers or waited years before buying a new one to benefit from even lower prices? Absolutely not. On the contrary, more computers are being sold as their prices go down.

I really don’t know where to begin.  He makes no actual arguments in favour of deflation, he just makes a lot of assertions claiming that we’ll all be able to more stuff with the same amount of money.  There’s no indication as to how an expanding economy would function with a static money supply.  There’s also no reasoning to support the notion that gold has some eternal quality that makes it the perfect support for currency.

I just can’t imagine this person leading a major national party.  Under his lead, the future of the CPC would be less secure than classified documents left at an ex-girlfriend’s house.

I have some more thoughts on his antiquated stance here.

The Liberals and Helena Guergis

So, is it obvious to anyone else but me that the Liberals are now setting the stage to court Helena Guergis over to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Their rhetoric against the government (about how this Minister was incompetent and that her behaviour was unacceptable as an MP et al.) and the demands that she should be fired was going full steam when they felt fairly confident that the Conservatives wouldn’t do anything about it.

Now, when the Government took immediate action and left them flat-footed and windless, they are shocked and dismayed that an MP should be so callously treated by their Party.

The Liberals, and the Liberal Party of Canada, have become so conciliatory lately in their language and are painting her in the role of the “victim” at the hands of a ruthless and unforgiving Conservative Party of Canada.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if even already, Ms. Guergis has been quietly assured (or at least has had it suggested) that there would be a place for her with the Liberals, if she so chose. And why not? She appears to have significant backing in her riding and may very well be a “winner” in the next election, provided she was running for a Party instead of as an Independant.

And she wouldn’t even have to “cross the floor” to do it.

End result for the Liberals? If you can’t take the riding with a Liberal, try and pinch it with a former Conservative.

Tories Ready to Trample on Rights to Catch a Few Drunk Drivers

Is this what the Conservatives mean when they say they’re tough on crime?

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on legalizing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced “remarkable results” in catching drunk drivers in other countries.

In a rare move, the federal government has posted on its website a discussion paper, weighing the benefits of random testing, seeking feedback by the end of April.

Empowering police to conduct random breath tests would replace Canada’s 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving. That law dictates that breathalyzer tests can only be administered when there is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

What’s next, random house searches?

Imagine the “remarkable results” in crime prevention that could be attained if we gave up all of our rights to the state.

Make sure to tell Justice Minister Rob Nicholson just what you think of this ill-advised legislation – (613) 957-4222, webadmin@justice.gc.ca

For a full explanation of these proposals see, Modernizing the Transportation Provisions of the Criminal Code – Discussion Paper

Advice to Liberals: Lose and then Reflect

Jeffrey Simpson writes:

Mr. Ignatieff, therefore, has to appeal beyond the travails of today to offer a better tomorrow and, in so doing, reconnect with those convictions that once defined the Liberal Party. Giving effect to those convictions – a strong central government, an activist state and an internationalist foreign policy – will take money that the federal government doesn’t have, and won’t have without raising taxes.

It’s good advice, but it’ll never happen under the current minority government situation; with the Liberal Party a whisper and a vote away from being the next government.

The Liberal Party of Canada needs to spend one term, possibly two, sitting in the opposition benches of a majority Conservative government before any real perspective on governing is achieved. The Liberal party had grown stale and corrupt under the heavy hand of Prime Minister Chretien (as any government would after 12 years) and the constant saber-rattling from the official opposition has done nothing to quell the stench of that staleness. I think the parade of new Liberal party leaders further proves the party needs to do some deep reflection before it can be handed the keys to Canadian government.

It should also be said that if Conservative supporters across the country (both big “C” and little “c”) feel like they didn’t get a chance to effect change – without the hindrance of a minority government situation – they are unlikely to consider any other party in the near future.

Polarization of the vote and constant minority governments may become the norm in Canadian politics, and that should strike fear in any Canadian concerned about the future of Canadian democracy.

The Liberal Party needs to lose and lose badly.

CPC – 2, Elections Canada – 0

It seems that this is a bad year for Elections Canada going up against the Conservative Party of Canada. After the GST Rebate ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land has just ruled in favor, again, of the Conservative Party of Canada in regards to the “In & Out” case.

Once again, we’re not seeing a whole lot of press about what was such a big deal in the past. Maybe someone will pick up the ball on this one, but I’m not holding my breath.

Still, not such a good day for Elections Canada who has stated it will review the ruling before deciding whether or not to appeal.

Michael Ignatieff and the Continuing Saga of Unfulfilled Promise

(No, I’m not going to write a Dear John letter to Michael Ignatieff.  I never expected him to amount to great leader; I just hoped he might become one.)

I’ve found Ezra Levant to have been a little reactionary regarding the Afghan detainee scandal.  The allusions made by Liberal MPs and pundits implying Canadians have committed war crimes are a little distasteful, but it does not seem helpful to get into a debate about whether or not someone made such a claim explicitly or implicitly.  Nonetheless, he does nab Mr. Ignatieff saying something rather disappointing:

Ignatieff said Liberals will work with other opposition parties to continue exploring the Afghan detainee issue while Parliament is shuttered. And he lambasted Harper for proroguing rather than complying with a Commons resolution demanding that the government turn over documents related to torture accusations levelled by diplomat Richard Colvin.

“Democracy breaks down if a prime minister defies the elected representatives of the people on a matter of that importance,” he said.

Ignatieff said the documents would shed light on such crucial matters as whether Canada has respected international law and human rights, “the conduct of our troops in the field” and the conduct of the government which appears to have ignored warnings about torture.

“This is really serious stuff,” he said, adding that Liberals “will not let up about this.”

(via The Canadian Press)

One of my hopes for this prorogation was for Mr. Ignatieff to begin showing some leadership.  Whatever one’s political inclinations, I hope most of us believe that a strong and principled opposition is healthy for our democracy.  I haven’t seen that from Mr. Ignatieff in the past, and, by conflating the conduct of Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan with the conduct of our political leadership, he does a disservice to those of us who wish to see an open and impartial investigation.

On this topic, Canadian Cynic asks:

There’s nothing magical or sacrosanct about being a member of Canada’s military. They have rules. They’re supposed to know those rules. And they’re supposed to follow those rules. And if they don’t follow them, they should expect to be punished for it. And if they knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes, what’s wrong with suggesting they be held accountable?

He is, obviously, correct.  Accountability does not disappear with the donning of a uniform.  My issue with Mr. Ignatieff’s insinuation is that we don’t have a whole lot of information to back it up.  In fact, we have stories of soldiers trying to do the right thing.  I can be as much a fan of hyperbole as the next person, but it is unhelpful in the pursuit of truth to begin with the concern that our troops are behaving inappropriately.  Further, such a stance only helps to marginalize the views of those of us who believe we need a fair investigation in order to find out what happened rather than a witch hunt.

I understand Mr. Ignatieff’s desire to score some political points.  Lord knows, the Conservative’s have scored enough at his expense.  However, what we, as a nation, need most from Mr. Ignatieff is an opposition leader who shows, you know, leadership.  Mr. Ignatieff has a wonderful opportunity to define his leadership on his own terms.

He’s not off to a good start.

Next Page »